Income inequality in the U.S. by state, metropolitan area, and county

What this report finds: Income inequality has risen in every state since the 1970s and in many states is up in the post–Great Recession era. In 24 states, the top 1 percent captured at least half of all income growth between 2009 and 2013, and in 15 of those states, the top 1 percent captured all income growth. In another 10 states, top 1 percent incomes grew in the double digits, while bottom 99 percent incomes fell. For the United States overall, the top 1 percent captured 85.1 percent of total income growth between 2009 and 2013. In 2013 the top 1 percent of families nationally made 25.3 times as much as the bottom 99 percent.

Why it matters: Rising inequality is not just a story of those in the financial sector in the greater New York City metropolitan area reaping outsized rewards from speculation in financial markets. While New York and Connecticut are the most unequal states (as measured by the ratio of top 1 percent to bottom 99 percent income in 2013), nine states, 54 metropolitan areas, and 165 counties have gaps wider than the national gap. In fact, the unequal income growth since the late 1970s has pushed the top 1 percent’s share of all income above 24 percent (the 1928 national peak share) in five states, 22 metro areas, and 75 counties.

Explore inequality by state, county, and metro area in this interactive feature.

What we can do to fix the problem: The rise of top incomes relative to the bottom 99 percent represents a sharp reversal of the trend that prevailed in the mid-20th century. Between 1928 and 1979, the share of income held by the top 1 percent declined in every state except Alaska (where the top 1 percent held a relatively low share of income throughout the period). This earlier era was characterized by a rising minimum wage, low levels of unemployment after the 1930s, widespread collective bargaining in private industries (manufacturing, transportation [trucking, airlines, and railroads], telecommunications, and construction), and a cultural and political environment in which it was outrageous for executives to receive outsized bonuses while laying off workers. We need policies that return the economy to full employment, return bargaining power to U.S. workers, and reinstate the cultural taboo on allowing CEOs and financial-sector executives at the commanding heights of the private economy to appropriate more than their fair share of the nation’s expanding economic pie.

Executive summary

While economic inequality has been one of the hottest topics this presidential campaign season, much of the focus has been on the fortunes of the top 1 percent at the national level. This report, our third annual such analysis, uses the latest available data to examine how the top 1 percent in each state have fared over 1917–2013, with an emphasis on trends over 1928–2013. (Data for additional percentiles spanning 1917–2013 are available at go.epi.org/unequalstates2016data.)

This third edition includes two new elements: We examine top incomes by metropolitan area and county in 2013.

Our analysis provides a number of major findings that confirm the widespread extent and growth of income inequality that is heightening economic anxiety among the American electorate:

In 2013, income inequality was much higher in many states, metropolitan areas, and counties than for the United States overall. In 2013 the top 1 percent of families nationally made 25.3 times as much as the bottom 99 percent.

Nine states had gaps wider than the national gap. In the most unequal states—New York, Connecticut, and Wyoming—the top 1 percent earned average incomes more than 40 times those of the bottom 99 percent.

Fifty-four of 916 metropolitan areas had gaps wider than the national gap. In the 12 most unequal metropolitan areas, the average income of the top 1 percent was at least 40 times greater than the average income of the bottom 99 percent. Most unequal was the Jackson metropolitan area, which spans Wyoming and Idaho; there the top 1 percent in 2013 earned on average 213 times the average income of the bottom 99 percent of families. The next 11 metropolitan areas with the largest top-to-bottom ratios were Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, Connecticut (73.7); Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, Florida (73.2); Sebastian-Vero Beach, Florida (63.5); Key West, Florida (58.5); Gardnerville Ranchos, Nevada (46.1); Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, Florida (45.0); Midland, Texas (44.3); Glenwood Springs, Colorado (42.4); San Angelo, Texas (40.9); Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, Nevada (40.7); and Summit Park, Utah (40.3).

165 of 3,064 counties had gaps wider than the national gap. The average income of the top 1 percent was at least 45 times greater than the average income of the bottom 99 percent in 25 counties. In Teton, Wyoming (which is one of two counties in the Jackson metropolitan area), the top 1 percent in 2013 earned on average 233 times the average income of the bottom 99 percent of families.

There is a wide variance in what it means to be in the top 1 percent by state, metro area, and county.

To be in the top 1 percent nationally, a family needs an income of $389,436. Twelve states, 109 metro areas, and 339 counties have thresholds above that level.

For states the highest thresholds are in Connecticut ($659,979), the District of Columbia ($554,719), New Jersey ($547,737), Massachusetts ($539,055), and New York ($517,557). Thresholds above $1 million can be found in four metro areas (Jackson, Wyoming-Idaho; Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, Connecticut; Summit Park, Utah; and Williston, North Dakota) and 12 counties.

While incomes at all levels declined as a result of the Great Recession, income growth has been lopsided since the recovery began in 2009; the top 1 percent captured an alarming share of economic growth while enjoying relatively high income growth.

Between 2009 and 2013, the top 1 percent captured 85.1 percent of total income growth in the United States. Over this period, the average income of the top 1 percent grew 17.4 percent, about 25 times as much as the average income of the bottom 99 percent, which grew 0.7 percent.

In 24 states the top 1 percent captured at least half of all income growth between 2009 and 2013.

In 15 of those states the top 1 percent captured all income growth between 2009 and 2013. Those states were Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

In the other nine states, the top 1 percent captured between 50.0 and 94.4 percent of all income growth. Those states were Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

Lopsided income growth is a long-term trend that predates the Great Recession.

Between 1979 and 2007, the top 1 percent took home well over half (53.9 percent) of the total increase in U.S. income. Over this period, the average income of the bottom 99 percent of U.S. families grew by 18.9 percent. The average income of the top 1 percent grew over 10 times as much—by 200.5 percent.

In 19 states the top 1 percent captured at least half of all income growth between 1979 and 2007. In four of those states (Nevada, Wyoming, Michigan, and Alaska), only the top 1 percent experienced rising incomes between 1979 and 2007.

Even in the 10 states in which they captured the smallest share of income growth from 1979 to 2007, the top 1 percent still captured between about a quarter and just over a third of all income growth.

The lopsided growth in U.S. incomes between 1979 and 2007, in which the top 1 percent’s share of income grew in every state, reversed a growing equality in the half century after the Great Depression.

The share of income held by the top 1 percent declined in every state but one between 1928 and 1979.

From 1979 to 2007 the share of income held by the top 1 percent increased in every state and the District of Columbia.

The 10 states with the biggest jumps (at least 13.5 percentage points) in the top 1 percent share from 1979 to 2007 include four states with large financial services sectors (New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Illinois), three with large information technology sectors (Massachusetts, California, and Washington), one state with a large energy industry (Wyoming), one with a large gaming industry (Nevada), and Florida, a state in which many wealthy individuals retire.

These trends have left us with unequal income growth spanning 1979 to 2013.

Between 1979 and 2013, the top 1 percent’s share of income doubled nationally, increasing from 10 percent to 20.1 percent.

The same 10 states that had the biggest jumps in the top 1 percent share from 1979 to 2007 had the biggest jumps (in this case at least 9.5 percentage points) from 1979 to 2013. Again, these are four states with large financial services sectors (New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Illinois), three with large information technology sectors (Massachusetts, California, and Washington), one state with a large energy industry (Wyoming), one with a large gaming industry (Nevada), and Florida, a state in which many wealthy individuals retire.

In 15 of the other 40 states, the increase in the top 1 percent share was between 6.9 and 9.4 percentage points. In the remaining 25 states, the increase ranged between 3.1 and 6.9 percentage points.

The unequal income growth since the late 1970s has brought the top 1 percent income share in the United States to near its 1928 peak.

Overall in the U.S. the top 1 percent took home 20.1 percent of all income in 2013. That share was less than 4 percentage points higher in 1928: 24 percent.

Five states had top 1 percent income shares above 24 percent in 2013. Shares were highest in New York (31.0 percent), Connecticut (29.7), Wyoming (28.7), Nevada (27.5), and Florida (25.6).

Introduction

In 2012, the Economic Policy Institute and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities jointly released Pulling Apart, a report on the growth of income in the top, middle, and bottom fifths of households in the United States and each state (McNichol et al. 2012). That report also included information on the incomes of the top 5 percent of earners. 1

Pulling Apart found that the richest 5 percent of U.S. households had an average income 13 times higher than the poorest 20 percent of households.

As its authors noted, the Census data relied on by Pulling Apart do not permit analysis of trends in the top 1 percent of households at the state level: Sample sizes are too small in some states (even when data are pooled across multiple years), and the data are “top coded.” This means that above a certain threshold, the highest incomes are not recorded at the actual income level reported to Census survey takers. Instead, they are reported at a specified top income. Top coding is used to ensure that small numbers of erroneous outliers do not distort Census data, and to ensure the anonymity of particularly high-income survey respondents.

The present report does permit analysis of state-level trends among the top 1 percent of earners. It uses the same methodology employed by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez (2003) to generate their widely cited findings on the incomes of the top 1 percent in the United States as a whole. (The authors of this report are contributors to the World Wealth and Income Database.)2 This methodology relies on tax data reported by the Internal Revenue Service for states and counties (see the methodological appendix for more details on the construction of our estimates).

Following Piketty and Saez, throughout this report we will examine trends in pre-tax and pre-transfer incomes, hereafter referred to simply as income, of tax units (single adults or married couples; hereafter referred to as families). The best way to think about this measurement of income is it represents all the taxable income people earn in market transactions, such as the income earned from working for a wage or salary at a job, through interest on a savings account, and from selling a financial asset for more than it was purchased (a capital gain). What is not included in our analysis is the impact that taxes and transfers (for example, Social Security payments or unemployment benefits) have on these market-derived incomes. While taxes and transfers do tend to reduce inequality by lowering incomes at the top and raising incomes at the bottom, the primary driver of rising inequality, even after taking into account taxes and transfers, is an increasingly unequal distribution of market incomes.3

One additional form of compensation excluded from our analysis here is nontaxable compensation such as employer contributions to pensions and health care. While these forms of nontaxable compensation have been growing over time, their exclusion does not materially close the growing gap we observe between the vast majority of people and the highest earners in our economy.4

Piketty and Saez’s groundbreaking 2003 study, now more than a decade old, increased attention to the body of work compiled since the 1980s documenting rising inequality in the United States. Their work helped inspire the Occupy Wall Street movement of 2011 and continues to resonate among the public. Growing public concern over rising inequality has also reinvigorated academic debates about whether inequality matters at all (Mankiw 2013) and about the role of finance and top executives in driving the growth of inequality (Bivens and Mishel 2013), and has spurred interest in how rising inequality limits the number of Americans who actually experience a “rags to riches” story over their lifetime (Corak 2013).

Applying Piketty and Saez’s methods to state-level data provides insight into the rise of incomes among the top 1 percent within each state (a population that significantly overlaps, but is not the same as, the national top 1 percent).5 This analysis can shed light on the degree to which the growth in income inequality is a widely experienced phenomenon across the individual states.

Before we begin our analysis of state data, it is useful to briefly summarize Piketty and Saez’s updated (2015) findings with respect to U.S. income inequality overall, focusing specifically on the share of income earned by the top 1 percent of families. They find the share of income captured by the top 1 percent climbed from 9.96 percent in 1979 to 23.50 percent in 2007.6 The share of income earned by the top 1 percent in 2007 on the eve of the Great Recession was just shy of 23.94 percent, the peak in the top 1 percent income share reached in 1928 (the year before the start of the Great Depression). Although the Great Recession reduced the income share of the top 1 percent, to 18.12 percent in 2009, their incomes surged ahead of the growth of incomes among the bottom 99 percent starting in 2010, with the income share of the top 1 percent reaching a peak of 22.83 percent in 2012. The 2012 peak was in part the result of high-income earners shifting income from 2013 to 2012 to reduce their tax liabilities in anticipation of higher top marginal tax rates that took effect in 2013. This tax planning helped reduce the top 1 percent’s take of all income to 20.08 percent in 2013. Income growth for the top 1 percent returned in 2014, the most recent year for which national-level data are available, with the top 1 percent taking home 21.24 percent of all income in the United States.

In the following sections we present data unique to this study by replicating Piketty and Saez’s method for each of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia and for 916 metropolitan areas and 3,064 counties. Our state data extend from 1917 to 2013, and our county and metropolitan area data are for 2013. To remain consistent with the most current national data from Piketty and Saez, all figures are in 2014 dollars.

We begin our analysis in the next section by painting a detailed picture of exactly how high the incomes of the most well-off among us are today. We then turn our attention to trends in top incomes over time, focusing first on the most recent economic recovery, then casting back our gaze to the 28 years between 1979 and 2007 and finally looking at how the fruits of economic growth have been distributed during every economic recovery since 1949. What the next three sections will reveal is that the top incomes we observe today are the direct result of a very lopsided distribution of the gains from economic growth toward the highest earners. We conclude the paper by comparing the share of all income earned by the top 1 percent in 1928 to the share today.

Income inequality across the states, metropolitan areas, and counties in 2013

Table 1 presents data by state for 2013 on the average income of the top 1 percent of families, the average income of the bottom 99 percent, and the ratio of these values. (As with all tables in this report, figures are in 2014 dollars.) In the United States as a whole, on average the top 1 percent of families earned 25.3 times as much income as the bottom 99 percent in 2013.

Table 1

Ratio of top 1% income to bottom 99% income, U.S. and by state and region, 2013

Rank (from highest to lowest)

State/region

Average income of the top 1%

Average income of the bottom 99%

Top-to-bottom ratio

1

New York

$2,006,632

$44,163

45.4

2

Connecticut

$2,402,339

$56,445

42.6

3

Wyoming

$2,118,167

$52,196

40.6

4

Nevada

$1,386,448

$36,169

38.3

5

Florida

$1,265,774

$36,530

34.7

6

Massachusetts

$1,692,079

$56,115

30.2

7

California

$1,411,375

$48,899

28.9

8

Texas

$1,301,618

$48,350

26.9

9

New Jersey

$1,453,741

$57,447

25.3

10

Illinois

$1,207,547

$48,684

24.8

11

Michigan

$834,008

$37,896

22.0

12

Washington

$1,100,186

$50,372

21.8

13

Georgia

$857,728

$40,095

21.4

14

North Dakota

$1,282,551

$61,178

21.0

15

Oklahoma

$930,201

$44,849

20.7

16

Louisiana

$859,619

$41,600

20.7

17

Arkansas

$750,101

$36,421

20.6

18

Arizona

$784,469

$38,354

20.5

19

Tennessee

$820,373

$40,156

20.4

20

Pennsylvania

$926,051

$45,781

20.2

21

Colorado

$1,101,214

$54,809

20.1

22

Missouri

$833,823

$41,641

20.0

23

Minnesota

$1,035,928

$52,689

19.7

24

Kansas

$981,279

$50,367

19.5

25

South Dakota

$1,025,091

$53,213

19.3

26

Wisconsin

$888,121

$46,669

19.0

27

Utah

$940,662

$50,367

18.7

28

Rhode Island

$884,609

$47,545

18.6

29

Oregon

$754,431

$40,719

18.5

30

South Carolina

$668,739

$36,950

18.1

31

New Hampshire

$1,011,141

$56,475

17.9

32

Ohio

$752,582

$42,391

17.8

33

Virginia

$987,607

$55,743

17.7

34

North Carolina

$745,686

$42,162

17.7

35

Montana

$730,864

$42,013

17.4

36

Alabama

$665,097

$38,854

17.1

37

Maryland

$1,024,110

$60,172

17.0

38

Mississippi

$565,813

$33,383

16.9

39

Kentucky

$619,585

$37,371

16.6

40

Indiana

$717,688

$43,426

16.5

41

Idaho

$738,278

$45,254

16.3

42

Vermont

$735,607

$45,719

16.1

43

Delaware

$768,109

$48,371

15.9

44

New Mexico

$593,739

$37,995

15.6

45

Nebraska

$872,892

$57,076

15.3

46

Maine

$612,494

$41,165

14.9

47

West Virginia

$488,634

$34,407

14.2

48

Iowa

$714,758

$51,248

13.9

49

Hawaii

$690,073

$51,033

13.5

50

Alaska

$833,117

$63,226

13.2

11*

District of Columbia

$1,531,432

$63,100

24.3

United States

$1,153,293

$45,567

25.3

Northeast

$1,564,388

$49,108

31.9

Midwest

$914,248

$45,539

20.1

South

$988,670

$43,421

22.8

West

$1,188,400

$47,396

25.1

* Rank of the District of Columbia if it were ranked with the 50 states

As shown in the table, New York and Connecticut have the largest gaps between the top 1 percent and the bottom 99 percent. The top 1 percent in 2013 earned on average 45.4 and 42.6 times the income of the bottom 99 percent of families in New York and Connecticut, respectively. This reflects in part the relative concentration of the financial sector in the greater New York City metropolitan area.

After New York and Connecticut, the next eight states with the largest gaps between the top 1 percent and bottom 99 percent in 2013 are Wyoming (where the top 1 percent earned 40.6 times as much as the bottom 99 percent, on average), Nevada (38.3), Florida (34.7), Massachusetts (30.2), California (28.9), Texas (26.9), New Jersey (25.3), and Illinois (24.8).

Even in the 10 states with the smallest gaps between the top 1 percent and bottom 99 percent in 2013, the top 1 percent earned between about 13 and 16 times the income of the bottom 99 percent. Those states include Idaho (where the top 1 percent earned 16.3 times as much as the bottom 99 percent, on average), Vermont (16.1), Delaware (15.9), New Mexico (15.6), Nebraska (15.3), Maine (14.9), West Virginia (14.2), Iowa (13.9), Hawaii (13.5), and Alaska (13.2).

In Table 2 we present for 2013 the 25 highest and 25 lowest top-to-bottom ratios among 916 U.S. metropolitan areas, and in Table 3 we present the 25 highest and 25 lowest ratios among 3,064 counties. See Table B1 for top-to-bottom ratios for all the available metropolitan areas and Table B2 for all the available counties.

Table 2

Ratio of top 1% income to bottom 99% income for the top and bottom 25 of 916 metropolitan areas, 2013

Rank (from highest to lowest)

Metropolitan area

Average income of the top 1%

Average income of the bottom 99%

Top-to-bottom ratio

1

Jackson, WY-ID

$19,995,834

$93,891

213.0

2

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT

$6,061,230

$82,222

73.7

3

Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL

$4,191,055

$57,258

73.2

4

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL

$2,519,981

$39,710

63.5

5

Key West, FL

$3,193,353

$54,615

58.5

6

Gardnerville Ranchos, NV

$2,054,149

$44,529

46.1

7

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL

$1,789,754

$39,778

45.0

8

Midland, TX

$3,364,922

$75,980

44.3

9

Glenwood Springs, CO

$2,441,991

$57,634

42.4

10

San Angelo, TX

$1,645,923

$40,287

40.9

11

Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV

$1,459,955

$35,895

40.7

12

Summit Park, UT

$4,008,668

$99,468

40.3

13

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA

$2,156,193

$54,895

39.3

14

Port St. Lucie, FL

$1,393,985

$36,015

38.7

15

Hailey, ID

$2,226,561

$61,404

36.3

16

North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL

$1,353,983

$38,921

34.8

17

Victoria, TX

$1,564,953

$46,636

33.6

18

Reno, NV

$1,332,600

$39,726

33.5

19

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL

$1,344,847

$40,169

33.5

20

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO

$1,594,106

$48,151

33.1

21

Sterling, CO

$1,192,457

$36,719

32.5

22

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA

$2,732,379

$85,042

32.1

23

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH

$1,963,545

$64,135

30.6

24

Whitewater-Elkhorn, WI

$1,393,019

$45,600

30.5

25

San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA

$2,168,628

$70,994

30.5

892

Dover, DE

$388,232

$41,349

9.4

893

Tiffin, OH

$332,266

$35,560

9.3

894

Fernley, NV

$297,456

$31,855

9.3

895

Peru, IN

$320,348

$34,949

9.2

896

North Vernon, IN

$312,371

$34,081

9.2

897

Fort Polk South, LA

$333,273

$36,379

9.2

898

Juneau, AK

$635,726

$69,704

9.1

899

Cedartown, GA

$248,067

$27,248

9.1

900

Grants, NM

$256,868

$28,876

8.9

901

Urbana, OH

$348,365

$39,491

8.8

902

Del Rio, TX

$326,749

$37,043

8.8

903

Beatrice, NE

$408,647

$46,960

8.7

904

Portales, NM

$231,775

$26,782

8.7

905

Ottawa, KS

$363,966

$42,234

8.6

906

Ozark, AL

$278,929

$32,447

8.6

907

Mountain Home, ID

$321,410

$37,395

8.6

908

Frankfort, IN

$349,651

$41,255

8.5

909

Hinesville, GA

$219,224

$26,697

8.2

910

St. Marys, GA

$284,555

$34,928

8.1

911

Susanville, CA

$244,497

$30,020

8.1

912

Rio Grande City, TX

$238,805

$30,948

7.7

913

California-Lexington Park, MD

$482,854

$64,837

7.4

914

Los Alamos, NM

$534,993

$80,038

6.7

915

Fort Leonard Wood, MO

$226,406

$36,144

6.3

916

Junction City, KS

$255,704

$43,561

5.9

United States

$1,153,293

$45,567

25.3

Note: Incomes are in 2014 dollars. Data are for tax units.

Source: Authors’ analysis of county and state-level tax data from the Internal Revenue Service SOI Tax Stats (various years), and Piketty and Saez (2012). Core Based Statistical Areas defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division; Office of Management and Budget, February 2013 delineations.

According to metropolitan-level data, the Jackson metropolitan area, which spans Wyoming and Idaho, had the largest gap between the top 1 percent and the bottom 99 percent. In Jackson the top 1 percent in 2013 earned on average 213 times the average income of the bottom 99 percent of families. The next nine metropolitan areas with the largest gaps between the top 1 percent and the bottom 99 percent are Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, Connecticut (where the top 1 percent earned 73.7 times as much as the bottom 99 percent, on average); Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, Florida (73.2); Sebastian-Vero Beach, Florida (63.5); Key West, Florida (58.5); Gardnerville Ranchos, Nevada (46.1); Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, Florida (45.0); Midland, Texas (44.3); Glenwood Springs, Colorado (42.4); and San Angelo, Texas (40.9).

In the 10 metropolitan areas with the smallest gaps between the top 1 percent and bottom 99 percent in 2013, the top 1 percent earned between 5.9 and 8.6 times the income of the bottom 99 percent of families. Those metropolitan areas include Mountain Home, Idaho (where the top 1 percent earned 8.6 times as much as the bottom 99 percent, on average); Frankfort, Indiana (8.5); Hinesville, Georgia (8.2); St. Marys, Georgia (8.1); Susanville, California (8.1); Rio Grande City, Texas (7.7); California-Lexington Park, Maryland (7.4); Los Alamos, New Mexico (6.7); Fort Leonard and Wood, Missouri (6.3); and Junction City, Kansas (5.9).

According to county-level data, Teton, Wyoming (which is one of two counties in the Jackson metropolitan area from the top of Table 2), had the largest gap between the top 1 percent and the bottom 99 percent. In Teton, Wyoming, the top 1 percent in 2013 earned on average 233 times the average income of the bottom 99 percent of families. The next nine counties with the largest gaps between the top 1 percent and the bottom 99 percent are La Salle, Texas (where the top 1 percent earned 125.6 times as much as the bottom 99 percent on average); Shackelford, Texas (117.1); New York, New York (115.6); Custer, Colorado (86.6); Fairfield, Connecticut (73.7); Franklin, Florida (73.4); Collier, Florida (73.2); Pitkin, Colorado (68.8); and San Juan, Washington (68.7).

In the 10 counties with the smallest gaps between the top 1 percent and bottom 99 percent in 2013, the top 1 percent earned between 5 and 6 times the income of the bottom 99 percent of families. Those counties include Southeast Fairbanks, Alaska (5.9); North Slope, Alaska (5.9); King George, Virginia (5.9); Robertson, Kentucky (5.9); Nance, Nebraska (5.8); Chattahoochee, Georgia (5.7); Aleutians West, Alaska (5.4); Shannon, South Dakota (5.3); Manassas Park City, Virginia (5.3); and Wade Hampton, Alaska (5.1).

Reported in Table 4 are the threshold incomes required to be considered part of the top 1 percent by state, and by region. Table 4 also includes the threshold to be included in the top 1 percent of the 1 percent (or the top 0.01 percent). Finally, the 50 states are ranked, from highest to lowest, according to the income threshold required to be considered part of the top 1 percent.

Table 4

Income threshold of top 1% and top .01%, and average income of top .01%, U.S. and by state and region, 2013

Rank (from highest to lowest threshold)

State/region

Income threshold of top 1%

Income threshold of top .01%

Average income of top .01%

1

Connecticut

$659,979

$18,725,678

$69,539,454

2

New Jersey

$547,737

$9,902,751

$27,543,511

3

Massachusetts

$539,055

$12,718,018

$43,377,857

4

New York

$517,557

$15,788,964

$61,569,466

5

North Dakota

$481,492

$8,604,082

$23,092,316

6

California

$453,772

$10,484,559

$34,842,377

7

Texas

$424,507

$9,548,502

$30,570,824

8

Maryland

$421,188

$6,473,201

$16,448,445

9

Illinois

$416,319

$8,634,123

$26,432,216

10

Minnesota

$411,022

$6,772,630

$18,115,219

11

Colorado

$410,716

$7,517,480

$21,284,001

12

Virginia

$406,412

$6,244,774

$15,852,268

13

Washington

$387,854

$7,805,465

$24,270,450

14

South Dakota

$386,622

$6,946,192

$19,931,296

15

Florida

$385,410

$9,503,505

$31,300,153

16

Wyoming

$368,468

$16,294,136

$97,682,655

17

Alaska

$365,332

$4,781,020

$10,498,675

18

Pennsylvania

$360,343

$6,125,315

$16,789,403

19

New Hampshire

$359,844

$7,123,629

$22,258,520

20

Kansas

$351,497

$6,867,921

$21,256,272

21

Nebraska

$346,252

$5,704,685

$15,473,263

22

Georgia

$345,876

$5,435,322

$13,716,343

23

Delaware

$342,699

$4,402,704

$9,720,082

24

Rhode Island

$336,625

$5,958,482

$17,125,434

25

Utah

$333,775

$6,606,832

$19,579,787

26

North Carolina

$327,549

$4,402,239

$10,452,087

27

Louisiana

$325,163

$5,717,205

$15,290,710

28

Oklahoma

$324,935

$6,545,212

$19,289,705

29

Iowa

$317,234

$4,190,419

$10,051,656

30

Ohio

$317,124

$4,610,782

$11,421,990

31

Oregon

$312,839

$4,727,899

$12,280,193

32

Wisconsin

$312,375

$6,245,825

$18,879,234

33

Nevada

$311,977

$10,930,356

$51,576,310

34

Arizona

$309,102

$5,090,195

$13,474,023

35

Tennessee

$308,834

$5,517,447

$15,788,156

36

Michigan

$306,740

$5,705,460

$16,869,663

37

Missouri

$305,471

$5,715,368

$16,849,759

38

Vermont

$299,259

$4,657,840

$12,055,549

39

Montana

$297,689

$4,628,105

$12,429,047

40

Indiana

$296,640

$4,448,865

$11,072,021

41

Idaho

$292,324

$4,768,525

$12,463,428

42

South Carolina

$288,042

$3,988,813

$9,403,004

43

Alabama

$283,899

$3,992,394

$9,549,052

44

Maine

$282,474

$3,435,796

$7,756,897

45

Hawaii

$281,620

$4,357,613

$11,873,650

46

Kentucky

$267,635

$3,716,230

$9,130,603

47

Mississippi

$264,952

$3,279,541

$7,669,070

48

West Virginia

$244,879

$2,522,272

$5,312,294

49

Arkansas

$237,428

$5,323,445

$20,606,219

50

New Mexico

$231,276

$3,853,057

$10,579,317

2*

District of Columbia

$554,719

$10,349,151

$27,941,032

United States

$389,436

$8,325,378

$26,106,656

Northeast

$476,408

$11,835,549

$40,855,345

Midwest

$343,059

$6,187,048

$17,580,287

South

$352,341

$6,897,923

$20,221,280

West

$393,416

$8,685,268

$28,227,857

* Rank of the District of Columbia if it were ranked with the 50 states.

Connecticut had the highest income threshold in 2013 for the top 1 percent, $659,979. New Mexico had the lowest threshold, $231,276.

Table 5 and Table 6 present the 25 highest and 25 lowest income thresholds required to be considered part of the top 1 percent by metropolitan area and county, respectively (to view all 916 metropolitan areas see Table B3, and see Table B4 for all 3,064 counties).7

Table 5

Income threshold of top 1% for the top and bottom 25 of 916 metropolitan areas, 2013

Rank (from highest to lowest threshold)

Metropolitan area

Income threshold of top 1%

1

Jackson, WY-ID

$1,650,902

2

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT

$1,390,965

3

Summit Park, UT

$1,206,863

4

Williston, ND

$1,066,541

5

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA

$964,238

6

Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL

$959,229

7

Midland, TX

$885,806

8

San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA

$785,946

9

Key West, FL

$773,711

10

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH

$701,776

11

Hailey, ID

$690,535

12

Boulder, CO

$683,648

13

Edwards, CO

$680,688

14

Dickinson, ND

$674,032

15

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA

$672,795

16

Trenton, NJ

$645,399

17

Glenwood Springs, CO

$640,277

18

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL

$617,382

19

Steamboat Springs, CO

$616,365

20

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX

$606,286

21

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV

$575,237

22

Vineyard Haven, MA

$571,352

23

Easton, MD

$559,658

24

Gardnerville Ranchos, NV

$553,891

25

Napa, CA

$552,799

892

Ashtabula, OH

$160,918

893

Jackson, OH

$159,791

894

Lumberton, NC

$159,460

895

Fort Leonard Wood, MO

$158,727

896

Henderson, NC

$158,034

897

Palatka, FL

$156,861

898

Bucyrus, OH

$156,740

899

North Vernon, IN

$155,223

900

Malvern, AR

$154,742

901

Valley, AL

$154,352

902

Newport, TN

$154,338

903

Cedartown, GA

$153,240

904

Las Vegas, NM

$152,989

905

Hinesville, GA

$152,556

906

Española, NM

$150,842

907

Rockingham, NC

$150,132

908

Summerville, GA

$148,569

909

Gaffney, SC

$147,522

910

Portales, NM

$147,232

911

Deming, NM

$146,521

912

Fitzgerald, GA

$145,130

913

Raymondville, TX

$137,185

914

Rio Grande City, TX

$136,855

915

Middlesborough, KY

$136,814

916

Bennettsville, SC

$126,085

United States

$389,436

Note: Incomes are in 2014 dollars. Data are for tax units.

Source: Authors’ analysis of county and state-level tax data from the Internal Revenue Service SOI Tax Stats (various years), and Piketty and Saez (2012). Core Based Statistical Areas defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division; Office of Management and Budget, February 2013 delineations.

In 2013, the highest threshold for membership in the top 1 percent by metropolitan area was $1.65 million in Jackson, Wyoming-Idaho, followed by $1.39 million in Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, Connecticut, and $1.21 million in Summit Park, Utah. For comparison, the threshold for joining the top 1 percent for the U.S. as a whole was $389,436 in 2013.

The lowest thresholds by metropolitan area for membership in the top 1 percent were $126,085 in Bennettsville, South Carolina; $136,814 in Middlesborough, Kentucky; and $136,855 in Rio Grande City, Texas.

Turning to the county-level data in Table 6, the highest top 1 percent threshold in 2013 was $2.22 million in Teton, Wyoming, followed by $1.42 million in New York, New York, and $1.39 million in Fairfield, Connecticut. The lowest thresholds were $96,674 in Holmes, Mississippi, followed by $96,685 in Lamar, Alabama, and $98,157 in Clayton, Georgia.

The data presented so far have painted a detailed picture of exactly how high the incomes of the most well-off among us are. We now turn our attention to trends in top incomes over time.

Unequal income growth in the current economic recovery

Before we begin our analysis of trends in income growth overall and among both the top 1 percent and the bottom 99 percent of families over 2009–2013, it is important to note trends in income between 2012 and 2013, the most recent years for which state-level data are available. As previously mentioned, the share of income earned by the top 1 percent reached a post–Great Recession peak in 2012 thanks in part to tax planning that shifted to 2012 taxable income that would otherwise have been reported in 2013. As a result, the average income of the top 1 percent fell 14 percent between 2012 and 2013. By region, the average income of the top 1 percent fell 8 percent in the Northeast, 13 percent in the Midwest, 16 percent in the South, and 14 percent in the West.

Although tax planning significantly reduced 2013 incomes for the highest earners, we still observe between 2009 and 2013 a highly lopsided distribution of the income generated by the economy since the end of the Great Recession. Over this period, the average income of the bottom 99 percent in the United States grew by just 0.7 percent. In contrast, the average income of the top 1 percent climbed 17.4 percent. In sum, the gains of the top 1 percent have vastly outpaced the gains for the bottom 99 percent as the economy has recovered.8

As illustrated in Table 7, among the individual states between 2009 and 2013, we find evidence of lopsided income growth, both in terms of the top 1 percent’s share of overall growth, and the degree by which top 1 percent income growth exceeded bottom 99 percent income growth:

Table 7

Average real income growth from 2009 to 2013, overall and for the top 1% and bottom 99%, U.S. and by state and region

Rank (by top 1% income growth, from highest to lowest)

State/region

Overall

Top 1%

Bottom 99%

Share of total growth (or loss) captured by top 1%

1

North Dakota

25.7%

61.7%

20.0%

32.6%

2

Wyoming

9.5%

55.1%

-2.3%

119.7%

3

Massachusetts

7.5%

32.5%

1.6%

82.5%

4

California

5.7%

28.1%

0.5%

92.5%

5

Texas

7.6%

26.4%

3.4%

63.0%

6

Michigan

4.2%

26.3%

0.3%

94.4%

7

Nevada

-5.1%

25.6%

-13.3%

Ŧ

8

Washington

2.7%

21.6%

-0.8%

124.3%

9

New York

2.7%

20.6%

-3.9%

205.4%

10

Kansas

5.7%

19.6%

3.3%

50.0%

11

Colorado

6.5%

17.6%

4.5%

41.4%

12

Ohio

5.8%

17.3%

3.9%

41.2%

13

Connecticut

3.4%

17.2%

-1.6%

134.6%

14

Minnesota

8.3%

16.9%

6.7%

31.4%

15

Oregon

3.4%

16.1%

1.4%

65.9%

16

Utah

11.6%

15.9%

10.9%

20.8%

17

Rhode Island

4.9%

15.8%

3.1%

46.4%

18

Illinois

5.0%

15.2%

2.7%

55.8%

19

New Jersey

1.6%

15.2%

-1.4%

173.5%

20

Florida

0.1%

15.0%

-4.3%

3669.6%

21

Missouri

0.6%

14.8%

-1.8%

345.5%

22

Oklahoma

8.3%

13.9%

7.2%

27.7%

23

South Dakota

10.8%

13.6%

10.3%

19.9%

24

Indiana

7.3%

13.4%

6.4%

24.7%

25

Idaho

8.2%

13.1%

7.4%

21.6%

26

Nebraska

10.2%

13.0%

9.7%

16.7%

27

Iowa

5.7%

12.8%

4.8%

26.0%

28

Tennessee

4.3%

12.8%

2.7%

47.1%

29

Georgia

-0.3%

12.3%

-2.7%

Ŧ

30

Wisconsin

5.8%

12.0%

4.7%

31.3%

31

South Carolina

1.5%

11.3%

-0.1%

102.8%

32

Arizona

3.4%

10.7%

2.0%

50.7%

33

Virginia

-3.7%

8.8%

-5.7%

Ŧ

34

New Hampshire

7.3%

8.1%

7.2%

16.8%

35

Pennsylvania

1.4%

8.0%

0.2%

89.2%

36

Vermont

4.4%

7.6%

3.9%

23.4%

37

Maryland

-2.7%

7.3%

-4.3%

Ŧ

38

North Carolina

0.5%

7.1%

-0.6%

219.6%

39

Louisiana

-0.9%

6.9%

-2.4%

Ŧ

40

Kentucky

3.5%

6.3%

3.0%

25.0%

41

Maine

2.5%

5.7%

2.0%

28.7%

42

Arkansas

4.6%

5.0%

4.6%

18.4%

43

Mississippi

-3.8%

1.8%

-4.6%

Ŧ

44

Delaware

-1.1%

-0.8%

-1.1%

10.7%

45

Alabama

2.3%

-0.9%

2.8%

ŧ

46

Alaska

3.4%

-1.1%

4.0%

ŧ

47

New Mexico

2.8%

-2.0%

3.6%

ŧ

48

Montana

7.8%

-3.9%

10.1%

ŧ

49

Hawaii

-3.6%

-9.5%

-2.7%

33.8%

50

West Virginia

4.0%

-14.1%

7.2%

ŧ

48*

District of Columbia

-0.7%

-2.1%

-0.3%

60.4%

United States

3.7%

17.4%

0.7%

85.1%

Northeast

3.0%

17.5%

-1.0%

125.9%

Midwest

5.7%

16.8%

3.7%

44.8%

South

2.2%

12.6%

0.1%

97.4%

West

4.9%

22.2%

1.3%

78.2%

* Rank of the District of Columbia if it were ranked with the 50 states
ŧ Top 1% incomes fell while overall incomes grew over this period.
Ŧ Overall income declined even as top 1% incomes grew over this period

In 24 states the top 1 percent captured between half and all income growth.

In 15 states, the average income of the bottom 99% fell while the average income of the top 1 percent increased. These 15 states (in alphabetical order) are Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

In the other nine states, the top 1 percent captured between 50.0 and 94.4 percent of all income growth. Those states (in alphabetical order) were Massachusetts, California, Texas, Michigan, Kansas, Oregon, Illinois, Arizona, and Pennsylvania.

In 19 states, the top 1 percent captured between 16.7 percent and just under half of all income growth. Those states (in alphabetical order) are Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

In five states, the incomes of the top 1 percent declined as the average income of the bottom 99 percent grew. Those states include Alabama, Alaska, Montana, New Mexico, and West Virginia.

Finally, incomes fell over the period analyzed for both the top 1 percent and the bottom 99 percent in Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Hawaii.

By difference between top 1 percent income growth and bottom 99 percent income growth

In each of the top 10 states ranked by income growth of the top 1 percent, incomes grew about 20 percent or more. In contrast, only one state—North Dakota—had bottom 99 percent income growth at that threshold. Bottom 99 percent income fell in 18 states, but top 1 percent income fell in only eight states.

Lopsided income growth from 1979 to 2007

It is important to note that lopsided income growth is not a recent trend. Its reemergence in the recovery is a continuation of a pattern that began three-and-a-half decades ago, as evident in the following examination of trends in income growth overall, among the top 1 percent, and among the bottom 99 percent from 1979 to 2007. The data in this section start in 1979 because it is both a business cycle peak and a widely acknowledged beginning point for a period of rising inequality in the United States. We end this analysis in 2007 as it is the most recent business cycle peak.

The average inflation-adjusted income of the bottom 99 percent of families grew by 18.9 percent between 1979 and 2007. Over the same period, the average income of the top 1 percent of families grew by 200.5 percent. This lopsided income growth means that the top 1 percent of families captured 53.9 percent of all income growth over the period.

Table 8 presents estimates for the 50 states and the District of Columbia (the states in the table are ranked by the income growth of the top 1 percent). It shows that:

Table 8

Average real income growth from 1979 to 2007, overall and for the top 1% and bottom 99%, U.S. and by state and region

Rank (by top 1% income growth, from highest to lowest)

State/region

Overall

Top 1%

Bottom 99%

Share of total growth (or loss) captured by top 1%

1

Connecticut

72.6%

414.6%

29.5%

63.9%

2

Massachusetts

82.1%

366.0%

51.7%

43.1%

3

New York

60.5%

355.1%

22.2%

67.6%

4

Wyoming

31.5%

354.3%

-0.8%

102.3%

5

New Jersey

62.6%

264.7%

41.3%

40.3%

6

Washington

31.2%

222.3%

13.9%

59.1%

7

Florida

38.8%

218.8%

13.8%

68.9%

8

Vermont

42.4%

217.0%

27.8%

39.5%

9

South Dakota

44.8%

216.0%

30.5%

37.2%

10

New Hampshire

53.2%

215.9%

37.6%

35.5%

11

Utah

31.0%

214.9%

15.4%

54.1%

12

Virginia

58.2%

214.8%

44.6%

29.5%

13

Illinois

31.4%

211.6%

12.2%

64.9%

14

Maryland

51.0%

202.1%

37.0%

33.6%

15

Colorado

37.4%

200.8%

21.2%

48.3%

16

Idaho

30.1%

197.6%

16.3%

49.9%

17

California

31.5%

191.8%

13.2%

62.4%

18

Pennsylvania

40.0%

184.9%

25.2%

42.8%

19

Tennessee

35.3%

178.0%

20.2%

48.4%

20

Minnesota

44.4%

175.9%

30.9%

36.8%

21

North Carolina

44.8%

172.0%

32.1%

34.8%

22

Georgia

37.5%

170.9%

23.5%

43.3%

23

Rhode Island

53.8%

170.3%

40.4%

32.6%

24

Nevada

8.6%

164.0%

-11.6%

218.5%

25

South Carolina

25.4%

163.5%

12.8%

54.0%

26

Nebraska

43.5%

160.3%

31.8%

33.5%

27

Alabama

33.7%

158.8%

20.5%

44.9%

28

Arizona

17.0%

157.8%

3.0%

84.2%

29

Wisconsin

28.5%

150.4%

17.4%

44.0%

30

Oklahoma

33.9%

149.6%

20.3%

46.6%

31

Maine

39.9%

149.4%

30.2%

30.5%

32

North Dakota

33.7%

147.8%

24.0%

34.2%

33

Montana

22.3%

146.8%

10.9%

55.2%

34

Missouri

31.9%

140.5%

20.3%

42.5%

35

Kansas

37.0%

132.3%

26.6%

35.0%

36

Oregon

13.5%

127.2%

2.7%

81.8%

37

Texas

26.6%

124.1%

13.5%

55.3%

38

Delaware

31.5%

122.6%

21.2%

39.7%

39

Arkansas

35.0%

121.6%

25.6%

34.0%

40

New Mexico

14.0%

119.3%

4.2%

72.6%

41

Alaska

-10.3%

118.6%

-17.5%

Ŧ

42

Hawaii

12.4%

118.0%

3.9%

70.9%

43

Indiana

21.4%

115.3%

12.6%

46.5%

44

Ohio

20.4%

111.2%

11.3%

49.4%

45

Iowa

30.9%

110.5%

23.7%

29.8%

46

Kentucky

19.9%

105.1%

11.2%

48.8%

47

Michigan

8.9%

100.0%

-0.2%

101.7%

48

Mississippi

31.8%

93.4%

24.8%

29.8%

49

Louisiana

35.4%

84.6%

29.5%

25.6%

50

West Virginia

12.9%

74.1%

6.6%

53.3%

6*

District of Columbia

88.1%

239.4%

65.8%

34.8%

United States

36.9%

200.5%

18.9%

53.9%

Northeast

59.0%

301.2%

31.0%

52.9%

Midwest

26.5%

147.1%

14.4%

50.7%

South

37.6%

167.5%

22.6%

46.1%

West

27.3%

186.2%

10.5%

65.2%

* Rank of the District of Columbia if it were ranked with the 50 states
Ŧ Only the incomes of the top 1% grew over this period.

In four states (Nevada, Wyoming, Michigan, and Alaska), only the top 1 percent experienced rising incomes between 1979 and 2007.

In another 15 states, the top 1 percent captured between half and just over four-fifths of all income growth from 1979 to 2007. Those states are Arizona (where 84.2 percent of all income growth was captured by the top 1 percent), Oregon (81.8 percent), New Mexico (72.6 percent), Hawaii (70.9 percent), Florida (68.9 percent), New York (67.6 percent), Illinois (64.9 percent), Connecticut (63.9 percent), California (62.4 percent), Washington (59.1 percent), Texas (55.3 percent), Montana (55.2 percent), Utah (54.1 percent), South Carolina (54.0 percent), and West Virginia (53.3 percent).

Income inequality in the last 10 economic expansions

Normally during the economic expansion that follows a recession, workers make wage gains that hopefully leave them better off than before the recession started. But examining trends throughout economic recoveries in the post–World War II era demonstrates a startling pattern in which the top 1 percent is capturing a larger and larger fraction of income growth. Between 1949 and 2013 there have been 10 economic expansions, with four occurring since 1979. Following Tcherneva (2014), Figure A presents the share of overall income growth captured by the top 1 percent of families during each of those expansions for the United States and by region. As the figure makes clear, prior to the mid- to late 1970s, the share of growth captured by the top 1 percent was much smaller than in each of the expansions since 1979. Through the 1975–1979 expansion, the top 1 percent’s share of income growth averaged between a low of 8.7 percent in the West to a high of 13.9 percent in the Northeast. In the four economic expansions since 1979, the top 1 percent’s share of average growth ranged between 43.6 percent in the Midwest to 71.4 percent in the West.

Figure A

Top 1 percent’s share of average income growth during expansions, by region

For ease of presentation, instead of presenting data for each expansion for all 50 states, Table 9 presents four averages: the average share of income growth captured by the top 1 percent and bottom 99 percent in the six expansions up to 1979, and the same averages over the four expansions starting in 1982.9 It shows that:

Table 9

Share of overall income growth captured by the top 1% and bottom 99% in pre- and post-1980 expansions

Rank (by share of overall income growth captured by top 1% in post-1980 expansions)

State/region

Share of total growth captured by top 1%

Share of total growth captured by bottom 99%

Pre-1980 expansions

Post-1980 expansions

Pre-1980 expansions

Post-1980 expansions

1

Nevada

11.6%

130.1%

88.4%

-30.1%

2

Missouri

8.4%

115.7%

91.6%

-15.7%

3

New York

-6.4%

94.4%

106.4%

5.6%

4

Wyoming

3.0%

87.2%

97.0%

12.8%

5

North Carolina

11.0%

81.8%

89.0%

18.2%

6

Connecticut

16.5%

79.8%

83.5%

20.2%

7

Washington

10.8%

79.1%

89.2%

20.9%

8

California

9.2%

74.6%

90.8%

25.4%

9

New Jersey

14.0%

72.9%

86.0%

27.1%

10

Oregon

6.6%

62.0%

93.4%

38.0%

11

Florida

15.2%

61.0%

84.8%

39.0%

12

Colorado

6.4%

58.9%

93.6%

41.1%

13

Arizona

11.1%

58.7%

88.9%

41.3%

14

Texas

11.0%

57.2%

89.0%

42.8%

15

Illinois

12.3%

56.6%

87.7%

43.4%

16

Georgia

11.1%

56.2%

88.9%

43.8%

17

Massachusetts

20.1%

55.4%

79.9%

44.6%

18

South Carolina

10.5%

55.3%

89.5%

44.7%

19

Utah

7.9%

53.1%

92.1%

46.9%

20

Pennsylvania

7.1%

52.1%

92.9%

47.9%

21

Tennessee

8.6%

51.8%

91.4%

48.2%

22

Michigan

7.7%

50.6%

92.3%

49.4%

23

Delaware

-8.1%

47.4%

108.1%

52.6%

24

Kansas

10.3%

44.3%

89.7%

55.7%

25

Hawaii

6.0%

41.6%

94.0%

58.4%

26

Alaska

14.1%

38.8%

85.9%

61.2%

27

Kentucky

7.0%

37.9%

93.0%

62.1%

28

Idaho

6.5%

36.7%

93.5%

63.3%

29

Oklahoma

10.0%

36.5%

90.0%

63.5%

30

Ohio

8.7%

36.0%

91.3%

64.0%

31

Wisconsin

9.0%

34.9%

91.0%

65.1%

32

Rhode Island

16.7%

34.5%

83.3%

65.5%

33

Minnesota

10.0%

34.4%

90.0%

65.6%

34

New Hampshire

6.4%

34.3%

93.6%

65.7%

35

Indiana

7.4%

34.2%

92.6%

65.8%

36

Nebraska

13.9%

33.3%

86.1%

66.7%

37

Maryland

7.1%

33.0%

92.9%

67.0%

38

Vermont

7.6%

32.6%

92.4%

67.4%

39

South Dakota

5.8%

32.3%

94.2%

67.7%

40

Alabama

7.8%

31.1%

92.2%

68.9%

41

Virginia

7.3%

29.7%

92.7%

70.3%

42

Maine

6.8%

28.6%

93.2%

71.4%

43

Arkansas

4.6%

27.8%

95.4%

72.2%

44

Iowa

9.2%

26.6%

90.8%

73.4%

45

Mississippi

9.5%

22.2%

90.5%

77.8%

46

Montana

6.1%

21.2%

93.9%

78.8%

47

North Dakota

-7.8%

20.3%

107.8%

79.7%

48

Louisiana

14.3%

19.4%

85.7%

80.6%

49

West Virginia

3.9%

11.5%

96.1%

88.5%

50

New Mexico

10.0%

0.9%

90.0%

99.1%

23*

District of Columbia

11.5%

47.7%

88.5%

52.3%

United States

9.5%

58.9%

90.5%

41.1%

Northeast

13.9%

68.0%

86.1%

32.0%

Midwest

8.8%

43.6%

91.2%

56.4%

South

10.4%

58.5%

89.6%

41.5%

West

8.7%

71.4%

91.3%

28.6%

* Rank of the District of Columbia if it were ranked with the 50 states

Note: The analysis in Table 9 was performed after excluding 26 state expansions. See endnote 9 for more detail.

The 10 states in which the top 1 percent captured the largest share of income growth in economic expansions after 1979 are Nevada (where 130.1 percent of all income growth was captured by the top 1 percent), Missouri (115.7 percent), New York (94.4 percent), Wyoming (87.2 percent), North Carolina (81.8 percent), Connecticut (79.8 percent), Washington (79.1 percent), California (74.6 percent), New Jersey (72.9 percent), and Oregon (62.0 percent).

The 10 states in which the top 1 percent captured the smallest share of income growth in economic expansions after 1979 are New Mexico (where 0.9 percent of all income growth was captured by the top 1 percent), West Virginia (11.5 percent), Louisiana (19.4 percent), North Dakota (20.3 percent), Montana (21.2 percent), Mississippi (22.2 percent), Iowa (26.6 percent), Arkansas (27.8 percent), Maine (28.6 percent), and Virginia (29.7 percent). In 49 states (New Mexico is the exception) and the District of Columbia, the share of income growth captured by the top 1 percent is higher in the post-1980 recoveries than in the pre-1980 recoveries.10

Inequality back at levels not seen since the late 1920s

This lopsided income growth means that income inequality has risen in recent decades. Figure B presents the share of all income (including capital gains income) held by the top 1 percent of families between 1917 and 2013 for the United States and by region. As the figure makes clear, income inequality reached a peak in 1928 before declining rapidly in the 1930s and 1940s and then more gradually until the late 1970s. The 1940s to the late 1970s, while by no means a golden age (as evident, for example, by gender, ethnic, and racial discrimination in the job market), was a period in which workers from the lowest-paid wage earner to the highest-paid CEO experienced similar growth in incomes. This was a period in which “a rising tide” really did lift all boats. This underscores that there is nothing inevitable about top incomes growing faster than other incomes, as has occurred since the late 1970s. The unequal income growth since the late 1970s has brought the top 1 percent income share in the United States to near its 1928 peak.

Figure B

Share of all income held by the top 1%, United States and by region, 1917–2013

The patterns of income growth over time in individual states reflect in broad terms the national pattern. Table 10 presents four snapshots of the income share of the top 1 percent in each state and the District of Columbia: in 1928, 1979, 2007, and 2013. The table shows that:

Between 1928 and 1979, in 49 states plus the District of Columbia, the share of income held by the top 1 percent declined, following the national pattern.11

From 1979 to 2007 the share of income held by the top 1 percent increased in every state and the District of Columbia.

Even factoring in the impact of the Great Recession by examining the period from 1979 to 2013, the share of income held by the top 1 percent still increased in every state and the District of Columbia. And as national data for 2014 have shown, top 1 percent incomes are moving higher as the economy continues to recover (the share of income held by the top 1 percent in the U.S. climbed to 21.2 percent).

Table 10

Top 1% share of all income, U.S. and by state and region, 1928, 1979, 2007, 2013

Change in income share of the top 1% (percentage points)

Rank (by change in share over 1979–2007)

State/region

1928

1979

2007

2013

1928–1979

1979–2007

1979–2013

Rank by change in share over 1979–2013

1

Connecticut

24.2

11.2

36.0

29.7

-13.0

24.8

18.4

3

2

Wyoming

12.5

9.1

33.9

28.7

-3.3

24.8

19.5

1

3

New York

30.2

11.6

35.3

31.0

-18.6

23.7

19.5

2

4

Nevada

18.3

11.6

30.2

27.5

-6.7

18.7

15.9

4

5

Florida

22.7

12.3

30.4

25.6

-10.5

18.1

13.3

6

6

Massachusetts

24.8

9.7

26.8

23.0

-15.0

17.0

13.3

5

7

Illinois

23.1

9.7

24.7

19.8

-13.4

15.0

10.1

9

8

California

20.5

10.3

24.6

22.3

-10.2

14.3

12.0

7

9

Washington

15.2

8.3

22.0

17.8

-6.9

13.7

9.5

10

10

New Jersey

23.5

9.6

23.1

20.1

-13.9

13.5

10.5

8

11

Arizona

17.9

9.1

21.6

16.9

-8.8

12.5

7.8

17

12

Utah

16.4

7.9

20.3

15.7

-8.5

12.4

7.8

16

13

Colorado

19.8

9.0

21.3

16.6

-10.7

12.2

7.6

18

14

Tennessee

21.1

9.6

21.3

16.9

-11.5

11.7

7.2

21

15

Idaho

10.4

7.7

18.8

14.0

-2.7

11.2

6.3

33

16

Pennsylvania

22.6

9.3

20.4

16.7

-13.3

11.1

7.4

20

17

Vermont

17.9

7.8

18.6

13.8

-10.2

10.8

6.0

36

18

Texas

19.2

11.9

22.7

21.1

-7.2

10.8

9.1

12

19

New Hampshire

19.3

8.8

19.5

15.1

-10.5

10.7

6.3

32

20

Georgia

20.8

9.6

20.2

17.5

-11.3

10.7

8.0

15

21

Oklahoma

20.1

10.6

21.3

17.1

-9.5

10.7

6.5

29

22

South Carolina

15.3

8.4

19.1

15.2

-6.8

10.6

6.8

27

23

South Dakota

12.9

7.8

18.2

16.1

-5.2

10.5

8.3

14

24

Alabama

18.0

9.6

20.0

14.5

-8.4

10.4

4.9

42

25

Oregon

15.5

8.7

18.7

15.5

-6.8

10.0

6.9

26

26

Montana

16.0

8.4

18.3

14.7

-7.6

9.8

6.3

31

27

Minnesota

20.2

9.3

19.2

16.3

-10.9

9.8

7.0

23

28

Maryland

27.1

8.5

18.3

14.5

-18.5

9.8

6.0

37

29

Missouri

21.9

9.7

19.0

16.6

-12.2

9.3

6.9

25

30

North Carolina

17.2

9.1

18.4

14.9

-8.0

9.3

5.8

39

31

Rhode Island

24.2

10.3

19.5

15.6

-13.9

9.2

5.3

41

32

Wisconsin

17.2

8.4

17.6

15.9

-8.9

9.2

7.5

19

33

Virginia

19.2

8.0

17.2

15.0

-11.2

9.1

7.0

24

34

New Mexico

17.5

8.6

17.7

13.4

-8.9

9.1

4.9

43

35

Michigan

21.4

9.1

17.9

17.9

-12.4

8.8

8.9

13

36

Nebraska

15.3

9.1

17.8

13.2

-6.2

8.7

4.1

48

37

Alaska

5.3

5.3

13.9

11.6

0.0

8.6

6.3

34

38

Delaware

46.1

10.3

18.7

13.6

-35.9

8.4

3.4

50

39

Hawaii

21.5

7.5

15.7

11.9

-14.0

8.2

4.3

46

40

Kansas

16.1

9.9

18.0

16.2

-6.3

8.1

6.4

30

41

Ohio

21.7

9.1

17.2

15.0

-12.6

8.1

5.9

38

42

Indiana

17.6

8.7

16.5

14.1

-8.9

7.9

5.4

40

43

Kentucky

19.9

9.3

17.1

14.1

-10.6

7.8

4.9

44

44

North Dakota

13.2

7.8

15.6

17.2

-5.3

7.8

9.4

11

45

Arkansas

14.3

9.8

17.4

17.0

-4.5

7.5

7.1

22

46

Maine

21.0

8.2

15.7

12.9

-12.8

7.5

4.7

45

47

West Virginia

16.9

9.3

15.4

12.4

-7.6

6.1

3.1

51

48

Iowa

16.4

8.4

14.5

12.2

-8.1

6.1

3.8

49

49

Mississippi

14.0

10.2

16.1

14.4

-3.8

5.9

4.2

47

50

Louisiana

18.7

10.8

15.8

17.0

-8.0

5.0

6.3

35

14

District of Columbia

24.7

12.9

25.0

19.4

-11.8

12.1

6.5

28

United States

23.9

10.0

23.5

20.1

-14.0

13.5

10.1

Northeast

27.0

10.4

28.2

24.0

-16.6

17.8

13.6

Midwest

21.1

9.2

19.3

16.6

-11.9

10.1

7.5

South

20.9

10.4

21.8

18.4

-10.5

11.3

8.0

West

19.2

9.6

23.2

19.9

-9.6

13.6

10.3

* Rank of the District of Columbia if it were ranked with the 50 states

The 10 states with the biggest jumps (at least 9.5 percentage points) in the top 1 percent share from 1979 to 2013 include four states with large financial services sectors (New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Illinois), three with large information technology sectors (Massachusetts, California, and Washington), one state with a large energy industry (Wyoming), one with a large gaming industry (Nevada), and Florida, a state in which many wealthy individuals retire. In 15 of the other 40 states, the increase in the top 1 percent share is between 6.9 and 9.4 percentage points. In the remaining 25 states, the increase ranges between 3.1 and 6.9 percentage points.

Also for 2013, we present in Tables 11 and 12 the share of income going to the top 1 percent and bottom 99 percent for the top 25 and bottom 25 metropolitan areas and counties (ranked by top 1 percent share of income. (See Table B5 for the top income share in all 916 metropolitan areas and Table B6 for all 3,064 counties.)

Table 11

Total share of all income held by the top 1% for the top and bottom 25 of 916 metropolitan areas, 2013

Bottom 99% breakdown

Rank (by top 1% share)

Metropolitan area

Bottom 90%

90th–<95th percentiles

95th–<99th percentiles

Bottom 99%

Top 1% (99th–100th percentiles)

1

Jackson, WY-ID

17.3

4.6

9.8

31.7

68.3

2

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT

27.2

10.8

19.3

57.3

42.7

3

Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL

27.6

10.7

19.1

57.5

42.5

4

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL

30.7

11.2

19.1

60.9

39.1

5

Key West, FL

34.8

10.2

17.9

62.9

37.1

6

Gardnerville Ranchos, NV

39.2

11.6

17.5

68.2

31.8

7

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL

38.3

11.9

18.5

68.8

31.2

8

Midland, TX

43.0

9.6

16.5

69.1

30.9

9

Glenwood Springs, CO

44.9

9.2

15.9

70.0

30.0

10

San Angelo, TX

46.1

11.0

13.7

70.8

29.2

11

Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV

42.9

13.0

15.0

70.9

29.1

12

Summit Park, UT

41.8

11.1

18.3

71.1

28.9

13

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA

41.3

11.5

18.8

71.6

28.4

14

Port St. Lucie, FL

41.4

13.0

17.5

71.9

28.1

15

Hailey, ID

44.9

10.8

17.6

73.2

26.8

16

North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL

41.0

13.3

19.6

74.0

26.0

17

Victoria, TX

49.4

11.3

14.0

74.7

25.3

18

Reno, NV

43.1

13.2

18.4

74.7

25.3

19

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL

42.6

12.8

19.2

74.7

25.3

20

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO

47.8

11.2

16.0

74.9

25.1

21

Sterling, CO

49.4

13.3

12.6

75.3

24.7

22

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA

44.4

12.2

19.0

75.5

24.5

23

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH

45.8

12.0

18.6

76.4

23.6

24

Whitewater-Elkhorn, WI

51.8

11.6

13.0

76.4

23.6

25

San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA

45.2

12.3

18.9

76.4

23.6

892

Dover, DE

63.8

14.0

13.5

91.3

8.7

893

Tiffin, OH

64.6

12.7

14.0

91.4

8.6

894

Fernley, NV

60.2

14.9

16.3

91.4

8.6

895

Peru, IN

63.7

13.4

14.4

91.5

8.5

896

North Vernon, IN

64.9

12.8

13.9

91.5

8.5

897

Fort Polk South, LA

64.0

12.9

14.6

91.5

8.5

898

Juneau, AK

69.2

9.9

12.4

91.6

8.4

899

Cedartown, GA

59.9

15.0

16.7

91.6

8.4

900

Grants, NM

62.3

13.9

15.6

91.8

8.2

901

Urbana, OH

66.0

12.4

13.4

91.8

8.2

902

Del Rio, TX

64.9

12.8

14.2

91.8

8.2

903

Beatrice, NE

67.0

11.1

13.8

91.9

8.1

904

Portales, NM

60.1

14.6

17.3

92.0

8.0

905

Ottawa, KS

66.5

12.1

13.5

92.0

8.0

906

Ozark, AL

62.1

14.2

15.7

92.0

8.0

907

Mountain Home, ID

66.5

12.1

13.4

92.0

8.0

908

Frankfort, IN

66.1

12.3

13.7

92.1

7.9

909

Hinesville, GA

62.0

14.3

16.1

92.3

7.7

910

St. Marys, GA

62.5

14.2

15.6

92.4

7.6

911

Susanville, CA

58.1

16.5

17.8

92.4

7.6

912

Rio Grande City, TX

67.2

12.2

13.4

92.8

7.2

913

California-Lexington Park, MD

68.1

11.7

13.2

93.0

7.0

914

Los Alamos, NM

67.5

12.6

13.5

93.7

6.3

915

Fort Leonard Wood, MO

67.5

12.8

13.7

94.0

6.0

916

Junction City, KS

72.8

10.4

11.2

94.4

5.6

United States

51.1

12.3

16.5

79.9

20.1

Source: Authors’ analysis of state and county-level tax data from the Internal Revenue Service SOI Tax Stats (various years), and Piketty and Saez (2012). Core Based Statistical Areas defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division; Office of Management and Budget, February 2013 delineations.

By metropolitan area the top 1 percent share of all income was highest in Jackson, Wyoming-Idaho at 68.3 percent, followed by 42.7 percent in Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, Connecticut, and 42.5 percent in Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, Florida. Overall in the U.S. the top 1 percent took home 20.1 percent of all income in 2013. Among metropolitan areas the lowest top income shares were 5.6 percent in Junction City, Kansas; 6.0 percent in Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri; and 6.3 percent in Los Alamos, New Mexico.

By county the top 1 percent took home 70.2 percent of all income in Teton, Wyoming; 55.9 percent in La Salle, Texas; and 54.2 percent in Shackelford, Texas. The lowest share of all income held by the top 1 percent was 4.9 percent in Wade Hampton, Alaska, and 5.1 percent in both Manassas Park City, Virginia, and Shannon, South Dakota.

Conclusion

The rise in inequality experienced in the United States in the past three-and-a-half decades is not just a story of those in the financial sector in the greater New York City metropolitan area reaping outsized rewards from speculation in financial markets. While many of the highest-income families do live in states such as New York and Connecticut, IRS data make clear that rising inequality and increases in top 1 percent incomes affect every state. Between 1979 and 2007, the top 1 percent of families in all states captured an increasing share of income. And from 2009 to 2013, in the wake of the Great Recession, top 1 percent incomes in most states once again grew faster than the incomes of the bottom 99 percent.

The rise between 1979 and 2007 in top 1 percent incomes relative to the bottom 99 percent represents a sharp reversal of the trend that prevailed in the mid-20th century. Between 1928 and 1979, the share of income held by the top 1 percent declined in every state except Alaska (where the top 1 percent held a relatively low share of income throughout the period). This earlier era was characterized by a rising minimum wage, low levels of unemployment after the 1930s, widespread collective bargaining in private industries (manufacturing, transportation [trucking, airlines, and railroads], telecommunications, and construction), and a cultural and political environment in which it was outrageous for executives to receive outsized bonuses while laying off workers.

Today, unionization and collective bargaining levels are at historic lows not seen since before 1928 (Freeman 1997). The federal minimum wage purchases fewer goods and services than it did in 1968 (Cooper 2013). And executives in companies from Hostess (Castellano 2012) to American International Group (AIG) still expected—and were awarded—bonuses after bankrupting their companies and receiving multibillion-dollar taxpayer bailouts (Andrews and Baker 2009).

Policy choices and cultural forces have combined to put downward pressure on the wages and incomes of most Americans even as their productivity has risen (Bivens et al. 2014; Levy and Temin 2007). CEOs and financial-sector executives at the commanding heights of the private economy have appropriated a rising share of the nation’s expanding economic pie, setting new norms for top incomes often emulated today by college presidents (as well as college football and basketball coaches), surgeons, lawyers, entertainers, and professional athletes.

The yawning economic gaps in today’s “1 percent economy” have myriad economic and societal consequences. For example, growing inequality blocks living standards growth for the middle class. The Economic Policy Institute’s The State of Working America, 12th Edition found that between 1979 and 2007, had the income of the middle fifth of households grown at the same rate as overall average household income, it would have been $18,897 higher in 2007—27.0 percent higher than it actually was. In other words, rising inequality imposed a tax of 27.0 percent on middle-fifth household incomes over this period (Mishel et al. 2012). Thompson and Leight (2012) find that rising top 1 percent shares within individual states are associated with declines in earnings among middle-income families. Roy van der Weide and Milanovic (2014) find that high levels of inequality reduce income growth among the poor and boost the income growth of the rich.

Additionally, increased inequality may eventually reduce intergenerational income mobility. More than in most other advanced countries, in America the children of affluent parents grow up to be affluent, and the children of the poor remain poor (Corak 2012). Today’s levels of inequality in the United States raise a new “American Dilemma,” to borrow a phrase from Gunnar Myrdal’s landmark study of American race relations (Myrdal 1944): Can rising inequality be tolerated in a country that values so dearly the ideal that all people should have opportunity to succeed, regardless of the circumstances of their birth?

Millions of Americans feel tremendous anxiety about their grasp on the American Dream. As observers of the 2016 presidential primaries have noted, anxiety could be channeled into support for policies that promote broadly shared prosperity—or into a darker, more divisive politics reminiscent of early 20th century European politics.

Since the “1 percent economy” is evident in every state, every state—and every metro area and region—has an opportunity to demonstrate to the nation new and more equitable policies. We hope these data on income inequality by state, metro area, and county will spur more states, regions, and cities to enact the bold policies America needs to become, once again, a land of opportunity for all.

About the authors

Estelle Sommeiller, a socio-economist at the Institute for Research in Economic and Social Sciences in France, holds two Ph.D.s in economics, from the University of Delaware and the Université Lumière in Lyon, France. Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez both approved her doctoral dissertation, Regional Inequality in the United States, 1913-2003, which was awarded the highest distinction by her dissertation committee. This report is based on, and updates, her dissertation.

The Institute for Research in Economic and Social Sciences (IRES) in France is the independent research center of the six labor unions officially granted representation nationwide. Created in 1982 with the government’s financial support, IRES is registered as a private nonprofit organization under the Associations Act of 1901. IRES’s mission is to analyze the economic and social issues, at the national, European, and international levels, of special interest to labor unions. More information is available at www.ires.fr.

Mark Price, a labor economist at the Keystone Research Center, holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Utah. His dissertation, State Prevailing Wage Laws and Construction Labor Markets, was recognized with an honorable mention in the 2006 Thomas A. Kochan and Stephen R. Sleigh Best Dissertation Awards Competition sponsored by the Labor and Employment Relations Association.

Ellis Wazeter was an intern with the Keystone Research Center in the summer of 2015. He is a sophomore pursuing a bachelor’s degree in Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University.

The Keystone Research Center (KRC) was founded in 1996 to broaden public discussion on strategies to achieve a more prosperous and equitable Pennsylvania economy. Since its creation, KRC has become a leading source of independent analysis of Pennsylvania’s economy and public policy. The Keystone Research Center is located at 412 North Third Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101-1346. Most of KRC’s original research is available from the KRC website at www.keystoneresearch.org.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the staff at the Internal Revenue Service for their public service and assistance in collecting state-level tax data, as well as the staff at the University of Delaware library for their assistance in obtaining IRS documentation. The authors also wish to thank Emmanuel Saez for graciously providing details on the construction of the Piketty and Saez top-income time series and for providing guidance on adjustments to make when constructing a state-by-state time series. This work would also have not been possible without Thomas Piketty’s (2001) own careful work and notes on how he constructed his top-income time series. Thanks to Mark Frank (2009) of Sam Houston State University for sharing unpublished state-level IRS data for 1984 and 1985 and collaborating with us in contributing to the World Wealth and Income database. Thanks also to Frédéric Lerais at the Institute for Research in Economic and Social Sciences; Lawrence Mishel, David Cooper, Lora Engdahl, Christopher Roof, Elizabeth Rose, Eric Shansby, Dan Essrow, and Susan Balding at the Economic Policy Institute; Colin Gordon at the Iowa Center for Public Policy; and Doug Hall at the Economic Progress Institute for their helpful comments and support in the preparation of this report.

Methodological appendix

The most common sources of data on wages and incomes by state are derived from surveys of households such as the Current Population Survey and the American Community Survey. These data sources are not well-suited to tracking trends in income by state among the highest-income households, especially the top 1 percent. Trends in top incomes can be estimated from data published by the IRS on the amount of income and number of taxpayers in different income ranges (Internal Revenue Service SOI Tax Stats various years). Table A1 presents this data for Pennsylvania in 2011. New to the third edition of this report we have assembled SOI Tax Stats for most counties for the years 2010 to 2013.12 County-level data is then aggregated to generate metropolitan-level data.

Table A1

Individual income and tax data for Pennsylvania, by size of adjusted gross income, tax year 2011

Knowing the amount of income and the number of taxpayers in each bracket, we can use the properties of a statistical distribution known as the Pareto distribution to extract estimates of incomes at specific points in the distribution of income, including the 90th, 95th, and 99th percentiles.13 With these threshold values we then calculate the average income of taxpayers with incomes that lie between these ranges, such as the average income of taxpayers with incomes greater than the 99th percentile (i.e., the average income of the top 1 percent).

Calculating income earned by each group of taxpayers as well as the share of all income they earn requires state-level estimates in each year between 1917 and 2013 of the total number of families and the total amount of income earned in each state. Piketty and Saez (2015) have national estimates of families (referred to from here forward as tax units)14 and total income (including capital gains), which we allocate to the states.15

In the sections that follow we describe in more detail the assumptions we made in generating our top income estimates by state. We will then review errors we observe in our interpolation of top incomes from 1917 to 2013 and compare our interpolation results with top income estimates obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue. Next we will briefly illustrate the calculations we used to interpolate the 90th, 95th, and 99th percentiles from the data presented in Table A1. Finally, the last section of the appendix will present our top income estimates for the United States as a whole, alongside the same estimates from Piketty and Saez (2015).

Estimating tax units by state, county, and metropolitan area

Tax units are an estimate of the universe of potential taxpayers (the total number of single adults and married couples in each state, county, or metropolitan area). In order to allocate Piketty and Saez’s national estimate of tax units to the states, we estimate each state’s share of the sum of married men, divorced and widowed men and women, and single men and women 20 years of age or older. From 1979 to 2013, tax unit series at the state level are estimated using data from the Current Population Survey (basic monthly microdata). From 1917 to 1978, the state total of tax units had to be proxied by the number of household units released by the Census Bureau, the only source of data available over this time period.16 For interdecennial years, the number of household units is estimated by linear interpolation. From 2010 to 2013 we use each county’s share of statewide total households from the American Community Survey in order to generate from our statewide tax unit counts and county-level tax units.17 Metropolitan area tax units are calculated as the sum of the county tax units that make up each metropolitan area.

Estimating total income (including capital gains)

We allocate Piketty and Saez’s total income to the states using personal income data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). From 1929 to 2012 we calculate each state’s share of personal income after subtracting personal current transfer receipts.18 These shares are then multiplied by Piketty and Saez’s national estimate of total income (including capital gains) to estimate total income by state over the period. Because BEA personal income data are not available prior to 1929, we inflate total income derived from the tax tables for each state in each year from 1917 to 1928 by the average of the ratio of total taxable income to total personal income (minus transfers) from the BEA from 1929 to 1939. The resulting levels are summed across the states, and a new share is calculated and multiplied by Piketty and Saez’s national estimate of total income (including capital gains). For the county-level data (2010 to 2013) we allocate state total income to individual counties using each county’s share of statewide adjusted gross income as reported by the IRS. Metropolitan-area total income is calculated as the sum of the county total income for each county in a metropolitan area.

Pareto interpolation

In a study of the distribution of incomes in various countries, the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto observed that as the amount of income doubles, the number of people earning that amount falls by a constant factor. In the theoretical literature, this constant factor is usually called the Pareto coefficient (labeled bi in Table A5).19 Combining this property of the distribution of incomes with published tax data on the number of tax units and the amount of income at certain levels, it is possible to estimate the top decile (or the highest-earning top 10 percent of tax units), and within the top decile, a series of percentiles such as the average annual income earned by the highest-income 1 percent of tax units, up to and including the top 0.01 percent fractile (i.e., the average annual income earned by the richest 1 percent of the top 1 percent of tax units).20

Our data series here matches most closely what Piketty and Saez (2001) label as “variant 3,” a time series of average top incomes and income shares that includes capital gains. In generating their “variant 3” time series Piketty and Saez make two key adjustments to top average incomes. We will now describe those adjustments.

From net to gross income, and the yearly problem of deductions

After an estimate of top incomes was obtained via Pareto interpolation, Piketty and Saez adjusted average incomes upward to account for net income deductions (1917 to 1943) and adjusted gross income adjustments (1944–2012).21 We followed Piketty and Saez and made the same adjustments uniformly across the states.

The IRS definition of income has varied over time. The IRS used the term “net income” until 1943, and “adjusted gross income” (AGI) from 1944 on. In the net income definition, the various deductions taken into account (donations to charity, mortgage interests paid, state and local taxes, etc.) were smaller over 1913–1943 than over 1944–2012. As a result, income estimates from 1913 to 1943 had to be adjusted upward.

To a lesser extent, incomes between 1944 and 2012 also had to be adjusted upward, as the term “adjusted” in AGI refers to various income deductions (contributions to individual retirement accounts, moving expenses, self-employment pension plans, health savings accounts, etc.). As Piketty and Saez note (2004, 33, iii), AGI adjustments are small (about 1 percent of AGI, up to 4 percent in the mid-1980s), and their importance declines with income within the top decile.

The treatment of capital gains across states, 1934–1986

The second major adjustment to incomes made by Piketty and Saez to their “variant 3” series were corrections to take into account the exclusion of a portion of capital gains from net income from 1934 to 1986.

Replicating Piketty and Saez’s capital gains adjustments uniformly across the states would, because of the concentration of income by geography, understate top incomes in high-income states such as New York and overstate top incomes in low-income states such as Mississippi. Unfortunately, state-level aggregates of capital gains income are not available at this time.

Instead, as a proxy we take each state’s deviation of top incomes from the U.S. average top income,22 and use this figure to adjust up or down the coefficients Piketty and Saez employ to correct for the exclusion of a portion of capital gains income from net income and AGI from 1934 to 1986.

Interpolation errors

Data users should exercise some caution in analyzing the full data series (provided online at go.epi.org/unequalstates2016data). We have identified 19 instances where our Pareto interpolation generated an income threshold that was higher than the next-higher income threshold. For example, in Wyoming in 2010 by Pareto interpolation we estimate the 90th percentile income to be $123,834, but also by Pareto interpolation we estimate the income at the 95th percentile as $119,168. Both estimates cannot be correct. The average incomes interpolated for groups between these thresholds will also be affected by this error. Table A2 presents the percentiles affected in each state by this error as well as the year in which the error occurred. Data users making comparisons over time should examine the entire time series for a state before drawing conclusions about time trends from a single point-to-point comparison.

Table A2

States and percentiles affected by errors in Pareto interpolations used to generate income thresholds, 1917–2011

Even when our estimates of each threshold are lower than the next-higher threshold (in other words, the 90th percentile is lower than the 95th percentile, and so on), errors can still arise in our calculation of the average incomes that lie between those percentiles. For example, in 2011 we estimate the average income between the 90th and 95th percentiles in Alabama was $119,120, while estimating the 95th percentile income as $109,260. Table A3 summarizes the number of such errors in our data set, excluding those that result from the errors reported in Table A2. Most of these errors occur in the bottom half of the top 10 percent.23

Table A3

Percentiles affected by errors in the estimation of interfractile average incomes, 1917–2011

Comparing imputed top incomes to actual top incomes

The methods discussed here to estimate top incomes from the data contained in Table A1 are not as precise as actually having a database of all individual tax returns from which to calculate average incomes for the highest-income taxpayers. The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue has generated and published more-precise top-income figures for Pennsylvania taxpayers filing their state tax returns in recent years. This allows us to compare the actual income data with the results of estimates using our standard method (the standard method being our only option for generating estimates in the other 49 states and for Pennsylvania in earlier years). It turns out that our methods underestimate the actual rise in top incomes.

Table A4 presents, using two different methods, the share of all income held by the top 1 percent as well as the average income of the top 1 percent for Pennsylvania. The first two columns present our projections based on IRS tax tables. The second two columns present the actual data on top incomes published by the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue for the years 2000 to 2011. Based on our projections using IRS data, top incomes in Pennsylvania grew by 8.3 percent between 2009 and 2011. Actually reported Pennsylvania Department of Revenue data show a rise of 9.3 percent. Between 2000 and 2011, our estimate of the share of income held by the top 1 percent was 2.6 percentage points lower than the actual figures. Likewise, from 2000 to 2011 our projection of the average income of the top 1 percent averaged 87 percent of the actual figures.

Table A4

Comparing projections of top incomes in Pennsylvania with actual levels, 2000–2011

Projections based on Internal Revenue Service data

Actual levels as reported by the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue

Year

Income share of the top 1%

Average income of the top 1%

Income share of the top 1%

Average income of the top 1%

Percentage-point difference between actual and projected income share of top 1%

Calculating the 90th, 95th, and 99th percentiles for Pennsylvania

Listed in Table A5 are the calculations we use to interpolate the 90th, 95th, and 99th percentile incomes for Pennsylvania.24 For brevity we present only the equations for calculating the average incomes by fractiles in Table A6.

Table A5

An example of Pareto interpolation for Pennsylvania in 2011

Row #

Income brackets

Lower bound (si)

Number of returns (Ni)

Cumulative # of returns (Ni*)

Adjusted gross income (Yi)

Cumulative adjusted gross income (Yi*)

1

No income

<= 0

82,325

6,183,225

-4,608,529

348,612,835

2

1–<25,000

1

2,419,804

6,100,900

28,102,112

353,221,364

3

25,000–< 50,000

25,000

1,458,749

3,681,096

52,856,101

325,119,252

4

50,000–< 75,000

50,000

859,952

2,222,347

52,954,678

272,263,151

5

75,000–< 100,000

75,000

543,875

1,362,395

47,004,707

219,308,473

6

100,000–< 200,000

100,000

633,858

818,520

84,200,638

172,303,766

7

200,000–< 500,000

200,000

151,006

184,662

43,064,934

88,103,128

8

500,000–<1,000,000

500,000

23,476

33,656

15,763,810

45,038,194

10

1,000,000 or more

1,000,000

10,180

10,180

29,274,384

29,274,384

11

Total

6,183,225

348,612,836

Row #

(yi = Yi* / Ni*)

Pareto Coefficient (bi= yi / si)

ai = (bi / (bi-1)

pi % = Ni* / N*

ki = si * [pi power(1/ai)]

1

56,380

2

57,897

91.77

3

88,321

3.53

1.39

55.37

16,363

4

122,512

2.45

1.69

33.43

26,139

5

160,973

2.15

1.87

20.49

32,166

6

210,506

2.11

1.90

12.31

33,301

7

477,105

2.39

1.72

2.78

24,952

8

1,338,192

2.68

1.60

0.51

18,242

10

2,875,676

2.88

1.53

0.15

14,586

Row #

Min [ Abs(pi – 10) ]

P90 = ki / [0.1 power 1/ai]

Min [ Abs(pi – 5) ]

P95 = ki / [0.05 power 1/ai]

Min [ Abs(pi – 1) ]

P99 = ki / [0.01 power 1/ai]

1

2.31

2.22

0.49

2

81.77

86.77

90.77

3

45.37

50.37

54.37

4

23.43

28.43

32.43

5

10.49

15.49

19.49

6

2.31

$111,535

7.31

11.31

7

7.22

2.22

$142,150

1.78

8

9.49

4.49

0.49

$326,426

10

9.85

4.85

0.85

Note: Money amounts are in thousands of dollars. N* or tax units for Pennsylvania in 2011 is 6,648,369.

3. Analysis by the Congressional Budget Office in its 2011 report, Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007, finds that three-fourths of the rise in income inequality between 1979 and 2007 as measured by the Gini coefficient was driven by the increasing concentration of market incomes. Notably, although taxes and transfers do reduce inequality at any point in time, changes in the distribution of taxes and transfers between 1979 and 2007 led to an increase in inequality.

4. Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman will release later this year a national time series of top incomes that incorporates non-taxable compensation like health care and pensions, according to a presentation they made in January of this year (Piketty, Saez, and Zucman 2015).

5. The top 1 percent nationally includes more than 1 percent of the population from the states with a big share of people with very high incomes (e.g., New York State) and less than 1 percent of the population in states with a small share of people with very high incomes.

6. There are trivial differences between our estimates of top incomes and top income shares for the United States as a whole, and those calculated by Piketty and Saez. See Table A7 in the appendix for a comparison of results from the two sources.

7. We opted not to summarize the threshold to be included in the top 0.01 percent and the average income of the top 0.01 percent for county and metropolitan areas because in places with fewer than 10,000 families, the number of families in the top 0.01 percent would be less than one. Users interested in those thresholds for larger areas can find them at go.epi.org/unequalstates2016data.

8. Saez’s latest estimate, which incorporates data from 2014, is that the top 1 percent captured 58 percent of all income growth over 2009–2014. The average income of the top 1 percent over this period grew 27 percent, while the average income of the bottom 99 percent grew 4.3 percent. We will see a similar improvement in the fortunes of the bottom 99 percent in most of the individual states when the 2014 state data are released later this year. Each year that the economy continues to expand, we should see stronger earnings growth among the bottom 99 percent. The key question is whether this expansion will end up distributing the fruits of economic growth more unequally than the last three economic expansions. See the section Income inequality in the last 10 economic expansions for more on this topic.

9. The analysis in Table 9 was performed after excluding 26 state expansions. Twenty expansions were dropped from the analysis because overall income growth was negative while top 1 percent incomes grew and bottom 99 percent incomes fell: Alaska (1982–1990), Colorado (1982–1990), Delaware (1975–1979), District of Columbia (1975–1979), Georgia (2009–2013), Hawaii (1970–1973), Hawaii (1975–1979), Hawaii (1991–2000), Louisiana (1982–1990), Louisiana (2009–2013), Maryland (2009–2013), Michigan (2001–2007), Mississippi (2009–2013), Montana (1982–1990), Nevada (2009–2013), New Mexico (1982–1990), Oklahoma (1982–1990), Texas (1982–1990), Virginia (2009–2013), and Wyoming (1982–1990). Another four state expansions (three from 1975 to 1979 and one from 2009 to 2013 in Florida) were excluded because the share of income growth captured by the top 1 percent was so high it biased upward the pre- and post-1980 state averages.

Specifically in New York, Maryland, Montana, and Florida, there were slight gains in overall income but declines in income for the bottom 99 percent. As a result, the top 1 percent share of overall income growth was 1,248 percent in New York, 302 percent in Maryland, 301 percent in Montana, and 963 percent in Florida. These figures raised the average share of growth captured by the top 1 percent during pre-1979 expansions from -6 percent to 203 percent in New York, from 7 percent to 56 percent in Maryland, and from 6 percent to 55 percent in Montana. Similarly, so far in the current expansion (2009–2013) the top 1 percent share of overall income growth in Florida is 3669.6 percent. This raises the average share of growth captured by the top 1 percent during post-1979 expansions in Florida from 61 percent to 963 percent. Finally, two additional state expansions from 2009–2013, for Delaware and Hawaii, were excluded. In both states so far in the current expansion incomes for both the top 1 percent and bottom 99 percent have fallen and were thus excluded from the analysis in Table 9. None of the exclusions discussed above were applied to the regional (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West) calculations.

10. Although our analysis in Table 9 excludes the 1982 to 1990 expansion in New Mexico (see footnote 9), where only the average income of the top 1 percent increased, calculating the average growth in the income of the top 1 percent in New Mexico over all four post-1980 expansions still yields slightly slower income growth of 6 percent for the top 1 percent, compared with 6.7 percent average income growth for the bottom 99 percent.

11. The share of income captured by the top 1 percent in Alaska was 5.3 percent in 1928 and 1979.

12. We present county and metropolitan statistics for only 2013 in the main body of the report because our substate time series is not available in 2009, the first year of the recovery. County and metropolitan data for all available years (2010 to 2013) are accessible online at go.epi.org/unequalstates2016data.

13. Sorting all incomes from the least to the highest, the 90th percentile income is greater than 90 percent of all incomes and less than 10 percent. Similarly, the 99th percentile income is greater than 99 percent of all incomes and less than the top 1 percent.

14. See Piketty and Saez (2001, 36–37) for discussion of why they choose to use tax units rather than individuals.

16. The decennial censuses do not provide a count of households in Alaska and Hawaii before 1960. We used the number of occupied dwelling units to estimate each state’s share of U.S. tax units from 1917 to 1959. Occupied dwelling units were available for both states from the 1950 Census of Housing (General Characteristics, Part 7) for both Alaska and Hawaii; the 1940 Census of Population for Alaska in 1940; and the 1940 Census of Housing (General Characteristics, Part 7) for Hawaii in 1940, 1930, and 1920.

17. The numbers of households in each county for 2013 were derived from the 2009 to 2013 American Community survey, for 2010 from the 2006 to 2010 ACS, for 2011 from the 2007 to 2011 ACS, and for 2012 from the 2008 to 2012 ACS.

18. The BEA does not publish personal income data for Alaska and Hawaii prior to 1950. We estimate Alaska’s and Hawaii’s shares of total income (including capital gains) from 1917 to 1949 based on their respective shares of U.S. total income (minus transfers) in 1950.

19. See Atkinson and Piketty (2007) for a discussion of Pareto interpolation.

20. We use the Pareto interpolation method to move from a varying number of income groups (as displayed in Table A1) to a fixed number of income fractiles, 17 in total: six top income thresholds (percentiles 90, 95, 99, 99.5, 99.9, and 99.99); six average income levels (percentiles 90–100, 95–100, 99–100, 99.5–100, 99.9–100, and 99.99–100); and five average income levels for intermediary fractiles (percentiles 90–95, 95–99, 99–99.5, 99.5–99.9, and 99.9–99.99) by state from 1917 to 2012. A detailed discussion of this technique can be found in Piketty (2001).

21. Emmanuel Saez graciously provided the precise adjustments that were made for net income deductions (1917–1943), adjusted gross income adjustments (1944–2012), and capital gains (1934–1986).

22. Our adjustment is: (state’s i top income – U.S. average top income) / U.S. average top income. For example, the average income of the highest-earning 0.01 percent of families in Delaware in 1939 was almost 10 times (9.4) the national average. Saez’s coefficient correcting the inconsistencies of capital gains over time is equal to 1.091 for that fractile. Inflating Saez’s coefficient yields 1.194 = 1.091 * (1 + 9.4 / 100). We apply this adjustment to all percentiles between 1934 and 1986.

23. Analysis of microdata from the American Community Survey suggests that linear interpolation, when possible, may be a more accurate way to estimate the 90th and 95th percentiles. One limitation of linear interpolation is that the 90th and 95th percentiles must fall somewhere below the uppermost income bracket of the tax tables.

24. The differences between the figures for the 90th, 95th, and 99th percentiles reported in Table A7 and the final thresholds for Pennsylvania of $112,671 (90th), $143,601 (95th), and $329,763 (99th) reflect upward adjustments to incomes to account for downward adjustments to AGI for deductions such as IRAs, moving expenses, etc.

Additional tables

Table B1

Ratio of top 1% income to bottom 99% income for all U.S. metropolitan areas, 2013

Rank (from highest to lowest ratio)

Metropolitan area

Average income of the top 1%

Average income of the bottom 99%

Top-to-bottom ratio

1

Jackson, WY-ID

$19,995,834

$93,891

213.0

2

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT

$6,061,230

$82,222

73.7

3

Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL

$4,191,055

$57,258

73.2

4

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL

$2,519,981

$39,710

63.5

5

Key West, FL

$3,193,353

$54,615

58.5

6

Gardnerville Ranchos, NV

$2,054,149

$44,529

46.1

7

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL

$1,789,754

$39,778

45.0

8

Midland, TX

$3,364,922

$75,980

44.3

9

Glenwood Springs, CO

$2,441,991

$57,634

42.4

10

San Angelo, TX

$1,645,923

$40,287

40.9

11

Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV

$1,459,955

$35,895

40.7

12

Summit Park, UT

$4,008,668

$99,468

40.3

13

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA

$2,156,193

$54,895

39.3

14

Port St. Lucie, FL

$1,393,985

$36,015

38.7

15

Hailey, ID

$2,226,561

$61,404

36.3

16

North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL

$1,353,983

$38,921

34.8

17

Victoria, TX

$1,564,953

$46,636

33.6

18

Reno, NV

$1,332,600

$39,726

33.5

19

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL

$1,344,847

$40,169

33.5

20

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO

$1,594,106

$48,151

33.1

21

Sterling, CO

$1,192,457

$36,719

32.5

22

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA

$2,732,379

$85,042

32.1

23

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH

$1,963,545

$64,135

30.6

24

Whitewater-Elkhorn, WI

$1,393,019

$45,600

30.5

25

San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA

$2,168,628

$70,994

30.5

26

Casper, WY

$1,710,626

$56,326

30.4

27

Santa Fe, NM

$1,410,235

$46,590

30.3

28

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA

$1,455,805

$48,492

30.0

29

Steamboat Springs, CO

$1,772,705

$59,505

29.8

30

Edwards, CO

$2,055,108

$69,343

29.6

31

The Villages, FL

$1,233,155

$41,898

29.4

32

Lufkin, TX

$1,010,583

$34,476

29.3

33

Fredericksburg, TX

$1,367,754

$46,818

29.2

34

Missoula, MT

$1,180,243

$40,693

29.0

35

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX

$1,691,321

$59,161

28.6

36

Hudson, NY

$1,063,446

$37,777

28.2

37

Easton, MD

$1,504,912

$54,139

27.8

38

Williston, ND

$3,402,874

$122,496

27.8

39

Trenton, NJ

$1,632,830

$60,245

27.1

40

Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA

$1,334,693

$49,346

27.0

41

Fairfield, IA

$1,053,158

$39,054

27.0

42

Wichita Falls, TX

$944,006

$35,274

26.8

43

Kerrville, TX

$1,073,769

$40,145

26.7

44

Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL

$1,074,502

$40,447

26.6

45

Great Bend, KS

$1,065,185

$40,692

26.2

46

Napa, CA

$1,458,589

$55,808

26.1

47

Alice, TX

$1,098,408

$42,133

26.1

48

Yakima, WA

$937,474

$36,079

26.0

49

Okeechobee, FL

$655,537

$25,321

25.9

50

Sheridan, WY

$1,293,138

$49,974

25.9

51

Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI

$1,388,095

$54,239

25.6

52

Woodward, OK

$1,445,698

$56,505

25.6

53

Clarksdale, MS

$608,574

$23,815

25.6

54

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL

$882,684

$34,675

25.5

55

Jacksonville, FL

$1,034,728

$41,050

25.2

56

Houma-Thibodaux, LA

$1,203,575

$47,897

25.1

57

Pittsburg, KS

$847,247

$33,728

25.1

58

Charlottesville, VA

$1,335,214

$53,205

25.1

59

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI

$1,026,758

$41,061

25.0

60

Tulsa, OK

$1,225,934

$49,223

24.9

61

Boulder, CO

$1,714,866

$68,980

24.9

62

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX

$1,332,359

$53,692

24.8

63

Mineral Wells, TX

$825,902

$33,320

24.8

64

El Dorado, AR

$923,786

$37,442

24.7

65

Clewiston, FL

$737,989

$29,986

24.6

66

Warren, PA

$799,067

$32,664

24.5

67

Douglas, GA

$592,858

$24,253

24.4

68

Hilton Head Island-Bluffton-Beaufort, SC

$1,164,904

$48,040

24.2

69

Kalamazoo-Portage, MI

$893,180

$37,018

24.1

70

Jasper, IN

$1,142,528

$47,612

24.0

71

Effingham, IL

$1,002,850

$42,139

23.8

72

Thomasville, GA

$718,289

$30,207

23.8

73

Kinston, NC

$677,422

$28,782

23.5

74

Ocala, FL

$621,856

$26,586

23.4

75

Uvalde, TX

$852,985

$36,715

23.2

76

Tyler, TX

$975,243

$42,015

23.2

77

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY

$1,012,903

$43,698

23.2

78

Big Spring, TX

$1,058,325

$45,675

23.2

79

Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI

$966,959

$41,894

23.1

80

Carlsbad-Artesia, NM

$1,090,886

$47,380

23.0

81

Pecos, TX

$941,197

$40,969

23.0

82

Austin-Round Rock, TX

$1,418,898

$61,851

22.9

83

Pampa, TX

$895,686

$39,072

22.9

84

Dalton, GA

$670,860

$29,370

22.8

85

Panama City, FL

$752,448

$33,221

22.6

86

Greenwood, MS

$618,810

$27,400

22.6

87

Lubbock, TX

$843,013

$37,685

22.4

88

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL

$860,310

$38,472

22.4

89

Fargo, ND-MN

$1,220,659

$54,712

22.3

90

Boone, NC

$666,580

$29,968

22.2

91

New Haven-Milford, CT

$1,064,252

$48,190

22.1

92

Duncan, OK

$935,712

$42,408

22.1

93

Enid, OK

$1,051,333

$47,675

22.1

94

San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande, CA

$986,446

$44,746

22.0

95

Wichita, KS

$1,089,732

$49,549

22.0

96

Gainesville, TX

$928,210

$42,430

21.9

97

New Orleans-Metairie, LA

$961,042

$44,025

21.8

98

Sioux Falls, SD

$1,395,330

$64,007

21.8

99

Hattiesburg, MS

$768,042

$35,245

21.8

100

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL

$687,850

$31,627

21.7

101

Charleston-North Charleston, SC

$977,544

$45,153

21.6

102

Lafayette, LA

$1,003,464

$46,359

21.6

103

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA

$1,306,521

$60,407

21.6

104

Bend-Redmond, OR

$948,660

$44,106

21.5

105

Traverse City, MI

$868,185

$40,377

21.5

106

Athens-Clarke County, GA

$758,700

$35,448

21.4

107

Morgan City, LA

$843,898

$39,521

21.4

108

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI

$1,091,892

$51,241

21.3

109

Claremont-Lebanon, NH-VT

$989,096

$46,463

21.3

110

Niles-Benton Harbor, MI

$747,819

$35,262

21.2

111

Spearfish, SD

$1,038,319

$48,963

21.2

112

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA

$1,025,362

$48,356

21.2

113

Longview, TX

$831,177

$39,274

21.2

114

Odessa, TX

$1,046,865

$49,656

21.1

115

Birmingham-Hoover, AL

$949,028

$45,025

21.1

116

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD

$1,145,336

$54,366

21.1

117

Wenatchee, WA

$871,490

$41,534

21.0

118

Bennington, VT

$861,255

$41,068

21.0

119

Dickinson, ND

$1,899,898

$90,640

21.0

120

Alma, MI

$627,521

$29,941

21.0

121

Brenham, TX

$956,273

$45,645

21.0

122

Laconia, NH

$1,039,138

$49,616

20.9

123

Provo-Orem, UT

$1,080,791

$51,666

20.9

124

Springfield, MO

$741,553

$35,461

20.9

125

San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX

$968,860

$46,421

20.9

126

Walla Walla, WA

$779,578

$37,412

20.8

127

Homosassa Springs, FL

$535,527

$25,712

20.8

128

Heber, UT

$1,277,858

$61,366

20.8

129

Paris, TN

$599,505

$28,791

20.8

130

Ruston, LA

$733,712

$35,267

20.8

131

Corpus Christi, TX

$851,678

$41,040

20.8

132

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ

$878,773

$42,423

20.7

133

Eugene, OR

$691,917

$33,572

20.6

134

San Diego-Carlsbad, CA

$1,072,946

$52,096

20.6

135

Garden City, KS

$1,028,010

$49,985

20.6

136

Roswell, NM

$619,504

$30,285

20.5

137

Salinas, CA

$959,649

$46,913

20.5

138

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA

$1,076,361

$52,683

20.4

139

Pittsfield, MA

$772,747

$37,862

20.4

140

Batesville, AR

$631,948

$30,998

20.4

141

College Station-Bryan, TX

$758,044

$37,419

20.3

142

Ann Arbor, MI

$1,009,865

$49,886

20.2

143

Cleveland-Elyria, OH

$895,279

$44,403

20.2

144

Gillette, WY

$1,336,614

$66,425

20.1

145

Georgetown, SC

$828,615

$41,181

20.1

146

Elkhart-Goshen, IN

$849,044

$42,204

20.1

147

Oklahoma City, OK

$1,038,673

$51,746

20.1

148

Green Bay, WI

$964,570

$48,186

20.0

149

St. Cloud, MN

$870,182

$43,494

20.0

150

Torrington, CT

$1,025,615

$51,289

20.0

151

Monroe, LA

$736,721

$37,011

19.9

152

Breckenridge, CO

$1,256,680

$63,243

19.9

153

Shreveport-Bossier City, LA

$763,342

$38,457

19.8

154

Corsicana, TX

$633,840

$31,967

19.8

155

Memphis, TN-MS-AR

$865,735

$43,744

19.8

156

Abilene, TX

$722,850

$36,565

19.8

157

Pittsburgh, PA

$892,181

$45,165

19.8

158

Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN

$1,023,883

$51,976

19.7

159

Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC

$989,409

$50,276

19.7

160

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI

$1,195,121

$60,751

19.7

161

Winona, MN

$791,806

$40,255

19.7

162

Huntsville, TX

$623,207

$31,727

19.6

163

Texarkana, TX-AR

$655,726

$33,426

19.6

164

Oxford, MS

$844,205

$43,100

19.6

165

Wheeling, WV-OH

$732,792

$37,488

19.5

166

Gainesville, FL

$638,097

$32,652

19.5

167

Zapata, TX

$548,379

$28,094

19.5

168

Jackson, MS

$792,828

$40,627

19.5

169

Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY

$686,590

$35,193

19.5

170

Punta Gorda, FL

$591,903

$30,401

19.5

171

Laredo, TX

$747,379

$38,483

19.4

172

Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO

$1,179,227

$60,955

19.3

173

Bozeman, MT

$984,717

$50,975

19.3

174

Watertown, SD

$959,718

$49,806

19.3

175

Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL

$583,008

$30,297

19.2

176

Fort Wayne, IN

$819,376

$42,607

19.2

177

Chattanooga, TN-GA

$740,279

$38,584

19.2

178

Aberdeen, SD

$1,038,912

$54,162

19.2

179

Columbia, MO

$832,988

$43,497

19.2

180

Kingsville, TX

$642,721

$33,563

19.1

181

Ludington, MI

$547,004

$28,588

19.1

182

Lamesa, TX

$734,801

$38,447

19.1

183

Rome, GA

$609,912

$31,927

19.1

184

Bainbridge, GA

$471,664

$24,698

19.1

185

Baton Rouge, LA

$891,896

$46,723

19.1

186

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX

$592,442

$31,066

19.1

187

South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI

$744,748

$39,058

19.1

188

Greenville, NC

$665,585

$34,915

19.1

189

Fresno, CA

$665,813

$34,955

19.0

190

Tallahassee, FL

$610,040

$32,087

19.0

191

Knoxville, TN

$762,628

$40,117

19.0

192

Ardmore, OK

$878,495

$46,234

19.0

193

Santa Rosa, CA

$899,769

$47,667

18.9

194

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA

$1,090,619

$57,860

18.8

195

Sioux City, IA-NE-SD

$950,699

$50,483

18.8

196

Natchez, MS-LA

$553,879

$29,432

18.8

197

Magnolia, AR

$592,724

$31,570

18.8

198

Mobile, AL

$687,749

$36,657

18.8

199

Elk City, OK

$1,102,065

$58,814

18.7

200

Greensboro-High Point, NC

$734,397

$39,297

18.7

201

Corning, NY

$553,353

$29,621

18.7

202

Vineyard Haven, MA

$1,297,105

$69,731

18.6

203

Paducah, KY-IL

$695,631

$37,418

18.6

204

Carson City, NV

$632,071

$34,084

18.5

205

Sedalia, MO

$598,605

$32,337

18.5

206

Salt Lake City, UT

$973,915

$52,713

18.5

207

Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN

$929,867

$50,338

18.5

208

Hobbs, NM

$931,004

$50,429

18.5

209

Evansville, IN-KY

$770,568

$41,746

18.5

210

Decatur, IL

$657,311

$35,629

18.4

211

Waco, TX

$662,679

$35,923

18.4

212

Florence, SC

$567,472

$30,818

18.4

213

Eau Claire, WI

$792,073

$43,020

18.4

214

Mount Pleasant, MI

$543,821

$29,608

18.4

215

Wilmington, OH

$676,001

$36,817

18.4

216

Prescott, AZ

$582,034

$31,706

18.4

217

Brunswick, GA

$614,299

$33,504

18.3

218

Altoona, PA

$621,557

$33,944

18.3

219

Iron Mountain, MI-WI

$596,472

$32,610

18.3

220

Sevierville, TN

$604,713

$33,079

18.3

221

Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA

$897,681

$49,156

18.3

222

Toccoa, GA

$502,798

$27,537

18.3

223

Grants Pass, OR

$486,226

$26,647

18.2

224

Ellensburg, WA

$614,659

$33,701

18.2

225

Lexington-Fayette, KY

$793,240

$43,500

18.2

226

Sikeston, MO

$629,071

$34,520

18.2

227

Durango, CO

$996,456

$54,698

18.2

228

Snyder, TX

$845,852

$46,462

18.2

229

Winston-Salem, NC

$718,585

$39,475

18.2

230

St. Louis, MO-IL

$913,853

$50,205

18.2

231

Ithaca, NY

$662,902

$36,481

18.2

232

Akron, OH

$798,922

$43,985

18.2

233

Alexandria, MN

$773,334

$42,673

18.1

234

Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR

$810,501

$44,739

18.1

235

Charleston-Mattoon, IL

$559,978

$30,960

18.1

236

Kansas City, MO-KS

$968,925

$53,623

18.1

237

Durant, OK

$574,046

$31,774

18.1

238

Rochester, NY

$678,307

$37,574

18.1

239

St. George, UT

$762,959

$42,443

18.0

240

Statesboro, GA

$480,214

$26,715

18.0

241

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL

$648,152

$36,092

18.0

242

Austin, MN

$699,768

$38,972

18.0

243

Meridian, MS

$571,414

$31,835

17.9

244

Midland, MI

$803,910

$44,838

17.9

245

Medford, OR

$614,056

$34,253

17.9

246

Dothan, AL

$626,846

$34,967

17.9

247

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL

$631,064

$35,209

17.9

248

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT

$960,353

$53,719

17.9

249

Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC

$686,526

$38,431

17.9

250

Spirit Lake, IA

$982,392

$55,110

17.8

251

Wausau, WI

$826,865

$46,474

17.8

252

Cleveland, TN

$636,522

$35,816

17.8

253

Alpena, MI

$462,062

$26,005

17.8

254

Salina, KS

$777,051

$43,742

17.8

255

Bardstown, KY

$753,228

$42,403

17.8

256

Madison, WI

$1,001,347

$56,448

17.7

257

Asheville, NC

$680,792

$38,379

17.7

258

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX

$693,305

$39,090

17.7

259

Hays, KS

$814,529

$45,944

17.7

260

Helena-West Helena, AR

$394,759

$22,292

17.7

261

Holland, MI

$695,631

$39,379

17.7

262

Cookeville, TN

$534,335

$30,250

17.7

263

Brookings, OR

$467,007

$26,440

17.7

264

Amarillo, TX

$729,356

$41,304

17.7

265

La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN

$784,820

$44,500

17.6

266

Natchitoches, LA

$555,809

$31,518

17.6

267

Fort Smith, AR-OK

$571,174

$32,390

17.6

268

Taos, NM

$507,118

$28,788

17.6

269

Greenville, MS

$472,318

$26,822

17.6

270

Mount Vernon, IL

$558,691

$31,730

17.6

271

Hot Springs, AR

$607,087

$34,509

17.6

272

Barnstable Town, MA

$891,509

$50,713

17.6

273

Bakersfield, CA

$643,952

$36,653

17.6

274

Bellingham, WA

$743,621

$42,332

17.6

275

Richmond, VA

$920,150

$52,395

17.6

276

Bloomington, IN

$639,125

$36,444

17.5

277

Janesville-Beloit, WI

$734,778

$41,909

17.5

278

Cambridge, OH

$591,247

$33,775

17.5

279

Willmar, MN

$750,820

$42,918

17.5

280

Macon, GA

$580,289

$33,239

17.5

281

Glens Falls, NY

$584,357

$33,496

17.4

282

Wilmington, NC

$756,206

$43,375

17.4

283

Valdosta, GA

$478,635

$27,460

17.4

284

Boise City, ID

$883,432

$50,769

17.4

285

Joplin, MO

$576,451

$33,140

17.4

286

Arcadia, FL

$382,284

$21,985

17.4

287

Columbus, OH

$854,317

$49,266

17.3

288

Durham-Chapel Hill, NC

$901,143

$51,968

17.3

289

West Plains, MO

$455,727

$26,289

17.3

290

Tuscaloosa, AL

$686,262

$39,619

17.3

291

Union City, TN-KY

$506,999

$29,275

17.3

292

Tupelo, MS

$590,183

$34,096

17.3

293

Kalispell, MT

$757,220

$43,781

17.3

294

Oshkosh-Neenah, WI

$776,047

$44,917

17.3

295

Weatherford, OK

$803,037

$46,542

17.3

296

Hastings, NE

$884,204

$51,257

17.3

297

Erie, PA

$622,485

$36,108

17.2

298

Visalia-Porterville, CA

$540,153

$31,339

17.2

299

Spartanburg, SC

$572,032

$33,230

17.2

300

Stephenville, TX

$537,925

$31,265

17.2

301

Las Vegas, NM

$394,082

$22,935

17.2

302

Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA

$531,113

$30,933

17.2

303

Charleston, WV

$616,238

$35,892

17.2

304

Ocean City, NJ

$663,964

$38,683

17.2

305

Wabash, IN

$632,681

$36,863

17.2

306

Burlington-South Burlington, VT

$939,621

$54,810

17.1

307

Newport, OR

$495,978

$28,938

17.1

308

Tucson, AZ

$602,666

$35,165

17.1

309

Jonesboro, AR

$594,801

$34,740

17.1

310

North Wilkesboro, NC

$477,665

$27,909

17.1

311

Nacogdoches, TX

$528,800

$30,908

17.1

312

Sebring, FL

$376,066

$21,995

17.1

313

Ontario, OR-ID

$539,693

$31,581

17.1

314

Keene, NH

$778,769

$45,616

17.1

315

Mountain Home, AR

$496,562

$29,096

17.1

316

Syracuse, NY

$629,617

$36,893

17.1

317

Flagstaff, AZ

$645,667

$37,845

17.1

318

Fond du Lac, WI

$763,014

$44,749

17.1

319

Henderson, NC

$473,901

$27,820

17.0

320

Grand Forks, ND-MN

$812,324

$47,735

17.0

321

Brainerd, MN

$616,139

$36,239

17.0

322

Somerset, KY

$462,906

$27,227

17.0

323

Alexandria, LA

$677,215

$39,860

17.0

324

Peoria, IL

$763,771

$44,987

17.0

325

Bay City, TX

$683,503

$40,362

16.9

326

Truckee-Grass Valley, CA

$678,439

$40,092

16.9

327

Troy, AL

$483,289

$28,562

16.9

328

Albany, GA

$499,454

$29,525

16.9

329

Huron, SD

$763,831

$45,158

16.9

330

Findlay, OH

$733,890

$43,412

16.9

331

Columbus, GA-AL

$577,486

$34,161

16.9

332

Indianola, MS

$422,436

$25,014

16.9

333

Providence-Warwick, RI-MA

$787,197

$46,645

16.9

334

Mount Vernon, OH

$647,609

$38,391

16.9

335

Billings, MT

$821,228

$48,691

16.9

336

Savannah, GA

$684,439

$40,617

16.9

337

Saginaw, MI

$518,242

$30,774

16.8

338

Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC

$576,858

$34,259

16.8

339

Tifton, GA

$531,563

$31,614

16.8

340

Cleveland, MS

$483,624

$28,805

16.8

341

Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN

$844,396

$50,346

16.8

342

Selma, AL

$439,286

$26,212

16.8

343

Columbus, MS

$527,350

$31,570

16.7

344

Johnson City, TN

$530,433

$31,788

16.7

345

Vernal, UT

$879,556

$52,751

16.7

346

Dubuque, IA

$875,822

$52,593

16.7

347

Cambridge, MD

$535,028

$32,131

16.7

348

Jackson, TN

$617,676

$37,216

16.6

349

Stillwater, OK

$622,882

$37,655

16.5

350

Corinth, MS

$407,831

$24,669

16.5

351

Miami, OK

$506,168

$30,639

16.5

352

Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA

$724,646

$43,899

16.5

353

Hammond, LA

$578,953

$35,092

16.5

354

Oak Harbor, WA

$722,099

$43,796

16.5

355

Mitchell, SD

$836,633

$50,962

16.4

356

Nogales, AZ

$504,925

$30,792

16.4

357

Washington, IN

$645,531

$39,420

16.4

358

Mount Pleasant, TX

$549,811

$33,585

16.4

359

Columbia, SC

$629,403

$38,460

16.4

360

Morgantown, WV

$685,269

$42,011

16.3

361

Champaign-Urbana, IL

$635,504

$39,029

16.3

362

Lansing-East Lansing, MI

$605,346

$37,181

16.3

363

Gainesville, GA

$688,676

$42,351

16.3

364

Mount Airy, NC

$472,524

$29,071

16.3

365

Laurel, MS

$508,771

$31,323

16.2

366

Quincy, IL-MO

$601,108

$37,072

16.2

367

Bradford, PA

$515,570

$31,824

16.2

368

Kahului-Wailuku-Lahaina, HI

$739,691

$45,677

16.2

369

Athens, TX

$507,706

$31,405

16.2

370

Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD

$935,853

$57,907

16.2

371

Paris, TX

$485,958

$30,076

16.2

372

Seneca, SC

$554,359

$34,338

16.1

373

Richmond, IN

$494,429

$30,649

16.1

374

LaGrange, GA

$528,748

$32,885

16.1

375

Galesburg, IL

$522,080

$32,502

16.1

376

Springfield, IL

$728,939

$45,456

16.0

377

Grand Island, NE

$855,142

$53,426

16.0

378

Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL

$544,726

$34,037

16.0

379

Burley, ID

$653,842

$40,868

16.0

380

Portland-South Portland, ME

$824,988

$51,601

16.0

381

Kennett, MO

$387,513

$24,239

16.0

382

Jacksonville, TX

$510,423

$31,939

16.0

383

Lima, OH

$582,894

$36,475

16.0

384

Canton-Massillon, OH

$631,809

$39,540

16.0

385

Springfield, MA

$639,861

$40,046

16.0

386

Laramie, WY

$589,669

$36,969

16.0

387

Angola, IN

$616,958

$38,703

15.9

388

Decatur, IN

$606,676

$38,092

15.9

389

Kearney, NE

$915,572

$57,494

15.9

390

Brookings, SD

$785,463

$49,334

15.9

391

Muncie, IN

$494,259

$31,065

15.9

392

Redding, CA

$487,073

$30,676

15.9

393

Toledo, OH

$618,299

$38,944

15.9

394

Pullman, WA

$505,837

$31,885

15.9

395

Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA

$595,893

$37,611

15.8

396

Beaver Dam, WI

$726,758

$45,888

15.8

397

Pinehurst-Southern Pines, NC

$738,918

$46,706

15.8

398

Lake Charles, LA

$667,907

$42,221

15.8

399

Marietta, OH

$595,564

$37,652

15.8

400

Salem, OR

$593,247

$37,526

15.8

401

Jamestown, ND

$782,253

$49,484

15.8

402

Sheboygan, WI

$728,179

$46,068

15.8

403

Poplar Bluff, MO

$446,500

$28,277

15.8

404

Ukiah, CA

$465,416

$29,479

15.8

405

Lafayette-West Lafayette, IN

$620,969

$39,341

15.8

406

Mankato-North Mankato, MN

$688,871

$43,653

15.8

407

Butte-Silver Bow, MT

$561,140

$35,574

15.8

408

Cape Girardeau, MO-IL

$620,401

$39,403

15.7

409

Kirksville, MO

$428,595

$27,239

15.7

410

Sidney, OH

$676,573

$43,011

15.7

411

Moultrie, GA

$386,118

$24,549

15.7

412

Red Bluff, CA

$410,922

$26,131

15.7

413

Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN

$720,906

$45,857

15.7

414

Greenwood, SC

$446,985

$28,434

15.7

415

Cordele, GA

$337,069

$21,453

15.7

416

Flint, MI

$488,993

$31,133

15.7

417

Lancaster, PA

$737,688

$47,047

15.7

418

Sulphur Springs, TX

$506,299

$32,290

15.7

419

Lewisburg, PA

$628,361

$40,089

15.7

420

Spencer, IA

$755,774

$48,286

15.7

421

Rapid City, SD

$830,020

$53,093

15.6

422

Chico, CA

$462,164

$29,574

15.6

423

Norwich-New London, CT

$756,428

$48,421

15.6

424

Roseburg, OR

$433,127

$27,743

15.6

425

Waycross, GA

$400,453

$25,660

15.6

426

Muskogee, OK

$527,543

$33,820

15.6

427

Wooster, OH

$630,383

$40,426

15.6

428

Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA

$997,691

$64,051

15.6

429

Celina, OH

$687,854

$44,160

15.6

430

Muskegon, MI

$467,396

$30,033

15.6

431

Sweetwater, TX

$549,269

$35,303

15.6

432

State College, PA

$616,583

$39,636

15.6

433

Sandpoint, ID

$587,463

$37,776

15.6

434

Sherman-Denison, TX

$572,403

$36,823

15.5

435

Modesto, CA

$550,706

$35,447

15.5

436

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV

$1,194,446

$76,929

15.5

437

Cullman, AL

$520,101

$33,627

15.5

438

Palestine, TX

$531,405

$34,368

15.5

439

Yuma, AZ

$418,954

$27,113

15.5

440

Beeville, TX

$596,910

$38,637

15.4

441

Houghton, MI

$427,869

$27,725

15.4

442

Starkville, MS

$454,193

$29,455

15.4

443

Dayton, OH

$620,651

$40,256

15.4

444

Grand Junction, CO

$645,045

$41,847

15.4

445

Appleton, WI

$825,626

$53,641

15.4

446

Auburn, NY

$485,729

$31,585

15.4

447

Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL

$709,468

$46,143

15.4

448

Evanston, WY

$844,357

$54,991

15.4

449

Big Rapids, MI

$432,222

$28,160

15.3

450

Minot, ND

$976,500

$63,629

15.3

451

Daphne-Fairhope-Foley, AL

$739,864

$48,214

15.3

452

Eureka-Arcata-Fortuna, CA

$415,183

$27,083

15.3

453

Rocky Mount, NC

$490,240

$32,005

15.3

454

Corvallis, OR

$648,809

$42,374

15.3

455

Pottsville, PA

$518,458

$33,885

15.3

456

Auburn-Opelika, AL

$592,204

$38,740

15.3

457

Danville, VA

$411,444

$26,942

15.3

458

Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA

$529,459

$34,674

15.3

459

Morristown, TN

$487,267

$31,976

15.2

460

Cheyenne, WY

$770,550

$50,611

15.2

461

Madisonville, KY

$528,239

$34,713

15.2

462

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ

$362,839

$23,868

15.2

463

Reading, PA

$683,863

$45,009

15.2

464

Bowling Green, KY

$533,122

$35,097

15.2

465

Idaho Falls, ID

$757,100

$49,853

15.2

466

Madison, IN

$563,533

$37,109

15.2

467

Ketchikan, AK

$855,562

$56,412

15.2

468

Branson, MO

$450,473

$29,710

15.2

469

Cullowhee, NC

$428,176

$28,274

15.1

470

El Campo, TX

$640,420

$42,340

15.1

471

Barre, VT

$708,501

$46,852

15.1

472

Warsaw, IN

$684,297

$45,262

15.1

473

Carbondale-Marion, IL

$479,918

$31,756

15.1

474

Worcester, MA-CT

$759,612

$50,288

15.1

475

Montgomery, AL

$604,369

$40,024

15.1

476

Wisconsin Rapids-Marshfield, WI

$600,704

$39,793

15.1

477

Bremerton-Silverdale, WA

$729,131

$48,318

15.1

478

Columbus, IN

$760,777

$50,485

15.1

479

New Philadelphia-Dover, OH

$572,070

$37,972

15.1

480

Opelousas, LA

$546,896

$36,312

15.1

481

Madera, CA

$508,525

$33,860

15.0

482

Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA

$952,670

$63,459

15.0

483

Plymouth, IN

$598,017

$39,859

15.0

484

Manitowoc, WI

$621,291

$41,416

15.0

485

Lake City, FL

$399,637

$26,658

15.0

486

Lebanon, MO

$415,424

$27,724

15.0

487

Scranton–Wilkes-Barre–Hazleton, PA

$551,225

$36,835

15.0

488

Sterling, IL

$547,949

$36,670

14.9

489

Bluefield, WV-VA

$409,358

$27,399

14.9

490

Jefferson City, MO

$614,060

$41,129

14.9

491

Oneonta, NY

$453,762

$30,435

14.9

492

Beckley, WV

$462,210

$31,128

14.8

493

Macomb, IL

$442,240

$29,826

14.8

494

Greenfield Town, MA

$545,528

$36,844

14.8

495

Wapakoneta, OH

$642,384

$43,420

14.8

496

Americus, GA

$368,367

$24,911

14.8

497

Manchester-Nashua, NH

$893,900

$60,462

14.8

498

Prineville, OR

$423,726

$28,671

14.8

499

Ponca City, OK

$563,052

$38,214

14.7

500

New Bern, NC

$553,155

$37,560

14.7

501

Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ

$600,865

$40,803

14.7

502

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX

$449,876

$30,553

14.7

503

Fort Madison-Keokuk, IA-IL-MO

$545,005

$37,015

14.7

504

Gadsden, AL

$457,359

$31,065

14.7

505

Lincoln, NE

$839,917

$57,053

14.7

506

Duluth, MN-WI

$569,059

$38,675

14.7

507

Fort Collins, CO

$805,257

$54,729

14.7

508

Oskaloosa, IA

$621,140

$42,258

14.7

509

London, KY

$383,281

$26,083

14.7

510

McComb, MS

$419,993

$28,584

14.7

511

Roanoke, VA

$577,577

$39,352

14.7

512

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA

$689,708

$47,029

14.7

513

Salisbury, MD-DE

$607,241

$41,446

14.7

514

Sandusky, OH

$579,984

$39,591

14.6

515

Bismarck, ND

$972,647

$66,434

14.6

516

Goldsboro, NC

$464,645

$31,750

14.6

517

Merced, CA

$453,441

$31,008

14.6

518

Sacramento–Roseville–Arden-Arcade, CA

$645,803

$44,170

14.6

519

Great Falls, MT

$561,845

$38,430

14.6

520

Wauchula, FL

$409,740

$28,042

14.6

521

Plainview, TX

$443,658

$30,380

14.6

522

Lawrence, KS

$695,454

$47,651

14.6

523

New Ulm, MN

$614,818

$42,133

14.6

524

Orangeburg, SC

$366,397

$25,113

14.6

525

Fitzgerald, GA

$358,733

$24,624

14.6

526

Marshall, MN

$648,303

$44,541

14.6

527

McPherson, KS

$738,866

$50,766

14.6

528

Zanesville, OH

$485,661

$33,383

14.5

529

Andrews, TX

$944,141

$64,944

14.5

530

Moberly, MO

$483,351

$33,271

14.5

531

Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC-NC

$530,623

$36,547

14.5

532

Martin, TN

$383,825

$26,462

14.5

533

Marshall, TX

$581,854

$40,144

14.5

534

Dyersburg, TN

$454,156

$31,400

14.5

535

Albertville, AL

$497,065

$34,387

14.5

536

Binghamton, NY

$459,703

$31,807

14.5

537

Bangor, ME

$517,943

$35,881

14.4

538

Kapaa, HI

$692,008

$47,973

14.4

539

Freeport, IL

$489,648

$33,979

14.4

540

Utica-Rome, NY

$442,398

$30,713

14.4

541

Bastrop, LA

$407,165

$28,300

14.4

542

Elmira, NY

$456,055

$31,699

14.4

543

Danville, KY

$443,367

$30,822

14.4

544

Indiana, PA

$480,233

$33,385

14.4

545

Mason City, IA

$619,272

$43,055

14.4

546

Hanford-Corcoran, CA

$480,147

$33,404

14.4

547

Shawnee, OK

$559,389

$38,943

14.4

548

Maysville, KY

$518,957

$36,196

14.3

549

Riverton, WY

$626,791

$43,736

14.3

550

Albert Lea, MN

$530,824

$37,048

14.3

551

Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH

$489,812

$34,191

14.3

552

Concord, NH

$767,260

$53,591

14.3

553

Wahpeton, ND-MN

$755,728

$52,786

14.3

554

Hutchinson, KS

$570,633

$39,898

14.3

555

Martinsville, VA

$344,681

$24,109

14.3

556

Kingston, NY

$561,318

$39,344

14.3

557

Gulfport-Biloxi-Pascagoula, MS

$515,862

$36,204

14.2

558

Hilo, HI

$520,472

$36,542

14.2

559

Raleigh, NC

$866,658

$61,022

14.2

560

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ

$691,290

$48,732

14.2

561

Vermillion, SD

$557,760

$39,343

14.2

562

Sumter, SC

$421,598

$29,782

14.2

563

Vidalia, GA

$372,870

$26,353

14.1

564

Burlington, IA-IL

$569,716

$40,281

14.1

565

Russellville, AR

$482,370

$34,176

14.1

566

Racine, WI

$674,233

$47,772

14.1

567

Yankton, SD

$698,578

$49,530

14.1

568

Malone, NY

$376,944

$26,739

14.1

569

Calhoun, GA

$446,176

$31,677

14.1

570

Kill Devil Hills, NC

$627,243

$44,538

14.1

571

Johnstown, PA

$457,714

$32,508

14.1

572

Lewiston, ID-WA

$548,604

$39,002

14.1

573

Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA

$464,281

$33,014

14.1

574

Rockford, IL

$550,937

$39,204

14.1

575

Brevard, NC

$455,272

$32,447

14.0

576

Coos Bay, OR

$385,410

$27,548

14.0

577

Jackson, MI

$476,222

$34,103

14.0

578

McAlester, OK

$470,330

$33,731

13.9

579

El Paso, TX

$482,255

$34,593

13.9

580

Thomaston, GA

$351,421

$25,241

13.9

581

Terre Haute, IN

$498,582

$35,825

13.9

582

Glasgow, KY

$409,458

$29,426

13.9

583

Wilson, NC

$469,782

$33,790

13.9

584

Owensboro, KY

$548,917

$39,500

13.9

585

North Platte, NE

$638,798

$45,972

13.9

586

Rochester, MN

$764,813

$55,065

13.9

587

Parsons, KS

$461,385

$33,334

13.8

588

Paragould, AR

$438,901

$31,766

13.8

589

Blytheville, AR

$408,184

$29,559

13.8

590

Sturgis, MI

$449,560

$32,565

13.8

591

Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC

$510,638

$37,017

13.8

592

Jamestown-Dunkirk-Fredonia, NY

$357,344

$25,920

13.8

593

Cañon City, CO

$436,780

$31,730

13.8

594

Logan, UT-ID

$566,222

$41,193

13.7

595

Payson, AZ

$387,757

$28,277

13.7

596

Hood River, OR

$645,468

$47,112

13.7

597

Mansfield, OH

$463,688

$33,863

13.7

598

Morehead City, NC

$527,845

$38,562

13.7

599

Albuquerque, NM

$543,080

$39,704

13.7

600

Clarksburg, WV

$538,167

$39,379

13.7

601

DuBois, PA

$446,282

$32,657

13.7

602

Twin Falls, ID

$554,916

$40,623

13.7

603

Brookhaven, MS

$453,725

$33,254

13.6

604

Bay City, MI

$447,803

$32,829

13.6

605

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC

$640,581

$46,974

13.6

606

Montrose, CO

$477,630

$35,032

13.6

607

Sanford, NC

$525,362

$38,541

13.6

608

Campbellsville, KY

$379,956

$27,888

13.6

609

Athens, OH

$401,064

$29,448

13.6

610

Portsmouth, OH

$395,418

$29,058

13.6

611

Las Cruces, NM

$440,879

$32,428

13.6

612

Harrisonburg, VA

$515,383

$37,928

13.6

613

Murray, KY

$413,448

$30,435

13.6

614

St. Joseph, MO-KS

$519,879

$38,280

13.6

615

Marinette, WI-MI

$423,625

$31,195

13.6

616

Cornelia, GA

$439,773

$32,447

13.6

617

Harrison, AR

$389,943

$28,778

13.6

618

Searcy, AR

$459,548

$33,950

13.5

619

Parkersburg-Vienna, WV

$470,837

$34,826

13.5

620

Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA

$676,804

$50,068

13.5

621

New Castle, PA

$469,149

$34,743

13.5

622

Williamsport, PA

$506,265

$37,504

13.5

623

Faribault-Northfield, MN

$657,819

$48,823

13.5

624

Dublin, GA

$376,822

$27,995

13.5

625

Anchorage, AK

$933,697

$69,440

13.4

626

Burlington, NC

$496,510

$36,943

13.4

627

Watertown-Fort Drum, NY

$390,783

$29,079

13.4

628

Fremont, NE

$634,719

$47,243

13.4

629

Forest City, NC

$347,330

$25,859

13.4

630

Battle Creek, MI

$434,758

$32,394

13.4

631

Levelland, TX

$557,214

$41,528

13.4

632

Oil City, PA

$419,859

$31,380

13.4

633

Hannibal, MO

$479,749

$35,859

13.4

634

Manhattan, KS

$570,823

$42,713

13.4

635

Elkins, WV

$416,200

$31,149

13.4

636

Bloomsburg-Berwick, PA

$509,802

$38,244

13.3

637

Bloomington, IL

$668,934

$50,279

13.3

638

Meadville, PA

$424,510

$31,913

13.3

639

Kennewick-Richland, WA

$638,076

$48,012

13.3

640

Coeur d’Alene, ID

$619,517

$46,645

13.3

641

Port Angeles, WA

$470,437

$35,440

13.3

642

Milledgeville, GA

$351,037

$26,472

13.3

643

Greenville, OH

$480,177

$36,245

13.2

644

Crossville, TN

$432,353

$32,651

13.2

645

Michigan City-La Porte, IN

$524,967

$39,688

13.2

646

Stockton-Lodi, CA

$525,303

$39,727

13.2

647

Coldwater, MI

$413,897

$31,314

13.2

648

Jacksonville, IL

$478,439

$36,197

13.2

649

Iowa City, IA

$743,225

$56,356

13.2

650

Crescent City, CA

$330,144

$25,045

13.2

651

Scottsboro, AL

$410,542

$31,153

13.2

652

Olean, NY

$354,261

$26,911

13.2

653

Greeley, CO

$701,081

$53,349

13.1

654

Clearlake, CA

$300,040

$22,865

13.1

655

Cedar Rapids, IA

$735,632

$56,080

13.1

656

Blackfoot, ID

$567,627

$43,329

13.1

657

Logan, WV

$355,702

$27,171

13.1

658

Rolla, MO

$429,931

$32,913

13.1

659

Moses Lake, WA

$499,145

$38,292

13.0

660

Rexburg, ID

$451,106

$34,702

13.0

661

Bartlesville, OK

$636,753

$49,015

13.0

662

Stevens Point, WI

$564,953

$43,593

13.0

663

Baraboo, WI

$576,451

$44,503

13.0

664

Marshall, MO

$432,056

$33,376

12.9

665

Ames, IA

$632,407

$48,919

12.9

666

Klamath Falls, OR

$347,547

$26,905

12.9

667

Brownwood, TX

$420,032

$32,541

12.9

668

Middlesborough, KY

$248,517

$19,256

12.9

669

Ada, OK

$498,218

$38,640

12.9

670

The Dalles, OR

$417,716

$32,502

12.9

671

Vincennes, IN

$468,563

$36,472

12.8

672

Ashland, OH

$469,259

$36,537

12.8

673

Washington Court House, OH

$409,109

$31,892

12.8

674

Roanoke Rapids, NC

$324,902

$25,364

12.8

675

Winchester, VA-WV

$583,192

$45,563

12.8

676

Palatka, FL

$270,615

$21,150

12.8

677

Grenada, MS

$395,246

$30,955

12.8

678

Port Lavaca, TX

$505,269

$39,606

12.8

679

Enterprise, AL

$514,214

$40,334

12.7

680

Gaffney, SC

$342,060

$26,848

12.7

681

Bemidji, MN

$449,017

$35,277

12.7

682

Gettysburg, PA

$588,686

$46,346

12.7

683

El Centro, CA

$446,968

$35,193

12.7

684

Ogden-Clearfield, UT

$658,873

$51,882

12.7

685

Centralia, WA

$413,968

$32,601

12.7

686

Hutchinson, MN

$555,624

$43,818

12.7

687

Vicksburg, MS

$426,501

$33,662

12.7

688

Sonora, CA

$404,750

$31,949

12.7

689

Norfolk, NE

$648,463

$51,298

12.6

690

Jesup, GA

$369,089

$29,215

12.6

691

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA

$501,154

$39,700

12.6

692

Fort Morgan, CO

$481,285

$38,168

12.6

693

Marquette, MI

$439,454

$34,869

12.6

694

Greeneville, TN

$345,997

$27,478

12.6

695

Forrest City, AR

$298,565

$23,776

12.6

696

Maryville, MO

$410,383

$32,712

12.5

697

Auburn, IN

$511,019

$40,762

12.5

698

Sayre, PA

$504,014

$40,248

12.5

699

Fort Dodge, IA

$528,007

$42,209

12.5

700

Farmington, NM

$538,221

$43,038

12.5

701

Albemarle, NC

$424,107

$33,946

12.5

702

Sault Ste. Marie, MI

$336,074

$26,924

12.5

703

Astoria, OR

$411,984

$33,019

12.5

704

Huntsville, AL

$668,055

$53,597

12.5

705

Pueblo, CO

$426,478

$34,223

12.5

706

Decatur, AL

$469,714

$37,702

12.5

707

Fergus Falls, MN

$490,224

$39,429

12.4

708

Washington, NC

$416,569

$33,526

12.4

709

Ogdensburg-Massena, NY

$351,001

$28,269

12.4

710

Urban Honolulu, HI

$688,560

$55,496

12.4

711

Mayfield, KY

$393,715

$31,803

12.4

712

Kankakee, IL

$484,820

$39,178

12.4

713

Colorado Springs, CO

$613,728

$49,614

12.4

714

Cortland, NY

$380,600

$30,801

12.4

715

Danville, IL

$379,955

$30,762

12.4

716

Alamogordo, NM

$354,096

$28,679

12.3

717

Pahrump, NV

$321,231

$26,054

12.3

718

Centralia, IL

$386,212

$31,406

12.3

719

York-Hanover, PA

$575,292

$46,793

12.3

720

Pierre, SD

$706,614

$57,593

12.3

721

Borger, TX

$512,587

$41,806

12.3

722

Ottawa-Peru, IL

$488,441

$39,880

12.2

723

Farmington, MO

$368,462

$30,088

12.2

724

Yuba City, CA

$388,644

$31,759

12.2

725

Lewiston-Auburn, ME

$432,263

$35,443

12.2

726

Shelbyville, TN

$424,473

$34,973

12.1

727

Camden, AR

$334,991

$27,615

12.1

728

Point Pleasant, WV-OH

$363,157

$29,960

12.1

729

Escanaba, MI

$368,124

$30,376

12.1

730

Vernon, TX

$375,406

$31,157

12.0

731

Springfield, OH

$420,780

$34,963

12.0

732

Anniston-Oxford-Jacksonville, AL

$390,769

$32,489

12.0

733

Dixon, IL

$482,431

$40,114

12.0

734

Lumberton, NC

$311,498

$25,915

12.0

735

Silver City, NM

$356,450

$29,696

12.0

736

Killeen-Temple, TX

$470,647

$39,216

12.0

737

Monroe, MI

$494,890

$41,240

12.0

738

Somerset, PA

$409,516

$34,161

12.0

739

Hermiston-Pendleton, OR

$409,616

$34,187

12.0

740

Big Stone Gap, VA

$294,706

$24,610

12.0

741

Berlin, NH-VT

$347,661

$29,084

12.0

742

Hereford, TX

$385,159

$32,266

11.9

743

Mexico, MO

$398,409

$33,509

11.9

744

Seneca Falls, NY

$369,096

$31,055

11.9

745

Clarksville, TN-KY

$426,282

$35,869

11.9

746

Bogalusa, LA

$309,313

$26,035

11.9

747

Raymondville, TX

$325,313

$27,399

11.9

748

Plattsburgh, NY

$384,562

$32,450

11.9

749

Moscow, ID

$460,092

$38,827

11.8

750

Batavia, NY

$388,790

$32,820

11.8

751

Menomonie, WI

$475,419

$40,208

11.8

752

Guymon, OK

$573,612

$48,548

11.8

753

Marion, IN

$370,639

$31,374

11.8

754

Lebanon, PA

$503,590

$42,747

11.8

755

Coffeyville, KS

$394,563

$33,530

11.8

756

Augusta-Waterville, ME

$444,541

$37,788

11.8

757

Topeka, KS

$523,859

$44,581

11.8

758

Shelby, NC

$370,906

$31,598

11.7

759

Salem, OH

$396,630

$33,856

11.7

760

Van Wert, OH

$447,193

$38,217

11.7

761

Cedar City, UT

$373,612

$31,981

11.7

762

DeRidder, LA

$449,611

$38,589

11.7

763

Laurinburg, NC

$319,454

$27,431

11.6

764

Cadillac, MI

$331,551

$28,491

11.6

765

Worthington, MN

$490,637

$42,214

11.6

766

Fayetteville, NC

$413,287

$35,588

11.6

767

Rutland, VT

$457,126

$39,477

11.6

768

New Castle, IN

$412,140

$35,615

11.6

769

Tullahoma-Manchester, TN

$413,799

$35,764

11.6

770

Longview, WA

$419,052

$36,258

11.6

771

Fairbanks, AK

$671,204

$58,084

11.6

772

Rock Springs, WY

$693,035

$60,174

11.5

773

Albany, OR

$380,388

$33,099

11.5

774

Taylorville, IL

$403,020

$35,101

11.5

775

Merrill, WI

$431,566

$37,702

11.4

776

Aberdeen, WA

$353,608

$30,959

11.4

777

Pocatello, ID

$442,766

$38,791

11.4

778

Pontiac, IL

$469,848

$41,176

11.4

779

Gloversville, NY

$325,502

$28,541

11.4

780

Lawrenceburg, TN

$325,749

$28,595

11.4

781

Bennettsville, SC

$248,752

$21,887

11.4

782

Jackson, OH

$327,425

$28,863

11.3

783

Sunbury, PA

$357,662

$31,541

11.3

784

McMinnville, TN

$322,179

$28,434

11.3

785

Adrian, MI

$391,166

$34,552

11.3

786

Clovis, NM

$369,248

$32,627

11.3

787

Safford, AZ

$354,986

$31,390

11.3

788

Logansport, IN

$401,437

$35,599

11.3

789

Española, NM

$338,818

$30,075

11.3

790

Tahlequah, OK

$362,145

$32,201

11.2

791

Cumberland, MD-WV

$348,443

$31,010

11.2

792

Arkadelphia, AR

$331,981

$29,573

11.2

793

Ionia, MI

$381,427

$34,039

11.2

794

Newberry, SC

$355,704

$31,774

11.2

795

Norwalk, OH

$428,593

$38,285

11.2

796

Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH

$374,905

$33,546

11.2

797

Storm Lake, IA

$547,710

$49,209

11.1

798

Jefferson, GA

$441,971

$39,853

11.1

799

Clinton, IA

$489,852

$44,236

11.1

800

Amsterdam, NY

$326,591

$29,586

11.0

801

Scottsbluff, NE

$487,043

$44,136

11.0

802

Chambersburg-Waynesboro, PA

$474,630

$43,049

11.0

803

Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV

$467,579

$42,491

11.0

804

Vineland-Bridgeton, NJ

$398,931

$36,331

11.0

805

Connersville, IN

$321,139

$29,261

11.0

806

Talladega-Sylacauga, AL

$333,709

$30,425

11.0

807

Marion, NC

$317,298

$28,964

11.0

808

Altus, OK

$398,573

$36,476

10.9

809

Lewistown, PA

$333,545

$30,537

10.9

810

Richmond-Berea, KY

$378,488

$34,674

10.9

811

Dayton, TN

$354,124

$32,501

10.9

812

Owosso, MI

$354,282

$32,576

10.9

813

Helena, MT

$515,487

$47,408

10.9

814

Emporia, KS

$383,597

$35,279

10.9

815

Dunn, NC

$410,836

$37,785

10.9

816

Kokomo, IN

$415,057

$38,260

10.8

817

Olympia-Tumwater, WA

$501,408

$46,267

10.8

818

Red Wing, MN

$549,887

$50,754

10.8

819

Lincoln, IL

$417,359

$38,587

10.8

820

Canton, IL

$347,224

$32,168

10.8

821

Kendallville, IN

$412,321

$38,210

10.8

822

Show Low, AZ

$293,369

$27,192

10.8

823

Othello, WA

$429,365

$39,811

10.8

824

Dodge City, KS

$516,190

$47,972

10.8

825

Fallon, NV

$338,507

$31,474

10.8

826

Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ

$330,669

$30,789

10.7

827

La Grande, OR

$335,679

$31,380

10.7

828

Selinsgrove, PA

$394,625

$36,974

10.7

829

Rockingham, NC

$268,636

$25,171

10.7

830

Port Clinton, OH

$466,763

$43,748

10.7

831

Owatonna, MN

$493,897

$46,496

10.6

832

Pine Bluff, AR

$329,912

$31,115

10.6

833

Winnemucca, NV

$481,000

$45,407

10.6

834

Marion, OH

$351,793

$33,211

10.6

835

East Stroudsburg, PA

$468,790

$44,297

10.6

836

Deming, NM

$270,215

$25,565

10.6

837

Hillsdale, MI

$313,000

$29,652

10.6

838

Elizabethtown-Fort Knox, KY

$413,262

$39,198

10.5

839

Summerville, GA

$242,060

$22,960

10.5

840

Lock Haven, PA

$350,833

$33,614

10.4

841

Defiance, OH

$411,474

$39,441

10.4

842

Craig, CO

$458,417

$44,001

10.4

843

Boone, IA

$547,675

$52,625

10.4

844

Coshocton, OH

$322,165

$31,029

10.4

845

Chillicothe, OH

$361,386

$34,826

10.4

846

Marshalltown, IA

$478,900

$46,199

10.4

847

Shelton, WA

$369,398

$35,707

10.3

848

Gallup, NM

$402,181

$38,889

10.3

849

Picayune, MS

$326,620

$31,591

10.3

850

Huntingdon, PA

$338,702

$32,792

10.3

851

Huntington, IN

$415,376

$40,366

10.3

852

Staunton-Waynesboro, VA

$397,747

$38,665

10.3

853

Newport, TN

$236,731

$23,040

10.3

854

Atchison, KS

$384,840

$37,751

10.2

855

Seymour, IN

$436,896

$42,886

10.2

856

Mount Sterling, KY

$305,868

$30,047

10.2

857

Warner Robins, GA

$397,064

$39,084

10.2

858

Platteville, WI

$380,464

$37,482

10.2

859

Bellefontaine, OH

$403,581

$39,806

10.1

860

Muscatine, IA

$514,853

$51,031

10.1

861

Liberal, KS

$474,302

$47,085

10.1

862

Bucyrus, OH

$318,010

$31,651

10.0

863

Athens, TN

$321,249

$32,013

10.0

864

Elko, NV

$489,335

$48,802

10.0

865

Price, UT

$350,931

$35,103

10.0

866

Arkansas City-Winfield, KS

$395,521

$39,567

10.0

867

Dumas, TX

$417,303

$41,844

10.0

868

Crawfordsville, IN

$395,583

$39,687

10.0

869

Fremont, OH

$382,995

$38,453

10.0

870

Oxford, NC

$416,545

$42,163

9.9

871

Lexington, NE

$484,396

$49,032

9.9

872

Greensburg, IN

$413,635

$41,876

9.9

873

Rochelle, IL

$419,638

$42,678

9.8

874

Ashtabula, OH

$315,260

$32,138

9.8

875

Lewisburg, TN

$346,648

$35,363

9.8

876

Bedford, IN

$335,342

$34,275

9.8

877

Columbus, NE

$576,614

$59,368

9.7

878

Valley, AL

$261,156

$26,948

9.7

879

Lawton, OK

$361,903

$37,367

9.7

880

Eagle Pass, TX

$343,928

$35,518

9.7

881

Shawano, WI

$351,118

$36,269

9.7

882

Warrensburg, MO

$337,948

$35,349

9.6

883

Watertown-Fort Atkinson, WI

$446,415

$46,833

9.5

884

Fairmont, WV

$363,723

$38,218

9.5

885

Frankfort, KY

$386,846

$40,691

9.5

886

Malvern, AR

$286,211

$30,301

9.4

887

Jacksonville, NC

$352,363

$37,314

9.4

888

Newton, IA

$441,049

$46,861

9.4

889

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA

$463,524

$49,250

9.4

890

Ottumwa, IA

$357,454

$38,012

9.4

891

Elizabeth City, NC

$360,596

$38,378

9.4

892

Dover, DE

$388,232

$41,349

9.4

893

Tiffin, OH

$332,266

$35,560

9.3

894

Fernley, NV

$297,456

$31,855

9.3

895

Peru, IN

$320,348

$34,949

9.2

896

North Vernon, IN

$312,371

$34,081

9.2

897

Fort Polk South, LA

$333,273

$36,379

9.2

898

Juneau, AK

$635,726

$69,704

9.1

899

Cedartown, GA

$248,067

$27,248

9.1

900

Grants, NM

$256,868

$28,876

8.9

901

Urbana, OH

$348,365

$39,491

8.8

902

Del Rio, TX

$326,749

$37,043

8.8

903

Beatrice, NE

$408,647

$46,960

8.7

904

Portales, NM

$231,775

$26,782

8.7

905

Ottawa, KS

$363,966

$42,234

8.6

906

Ozark, AL

$278,929

$32,447

8.6

907

Mountain Home, ID

$321,410

$37,395

8.6

908

Frankfort, IN

$349,651

$41,255

8.5

909

Hinesville, GA

$219,224

$26,697

8.2

910

St. Marys, GA

$284,555

$34,928

8.1

911

Susanville, CA

$244,497

$30,020

8.1

912

Rio Grande City, TX

$238,805

$30,948

7.7

913

California-Lexington Park, MD

$482,854

$64,837

7.4

914

Los Alamos, NM

$534,993

$80,038

6.7

915

Fort Leonard Wood, MO

$226,406

$36,144

6.3

916

Junction City, KS

$255,704

$43,561

5.9

Source: Authors’ analysis of county-level tax data from the Internal Revenue Service SOI Tax Stats (various years), and Piketty and Saez (2012). Core Based Statistical Areas defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division; Office of Management and Budget, February 2013 delineations.

Source: Authors’ analysis of county and state-level tax data from the Internal Revenue Service SOI Tax Stats (various years), and Piketty and Saez (2012). Core Based Statistical Areas defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division; Office of Management and Budget, February 2013 delineations.